Soft Body Parts?

[aniso]

I can understand how things could possibly fossilize differently in the middle of some thick bone, like the thigh bone of a T-Rex, but I was recently reading the "Year in Science" edition of "Discover Magazine" (I only read the most prestigious scientific journals ) where it mentioned on page 53 something about fossilized Frog marrow being discovered in 10 million year old remains in Madrid. In this case they think the marrow may still contain DNA and proteins.

A couple of things. First, you need to provide a reference that actualy says that this DNA is intact. My bet is that you will not be able to do that. If it were the case, then Carico will have to admit that dinosaurs actually DID exist. Second, it is actually no big deal to find organic material that is even older than 65ma. There are actually some pollen and seeds that are older as I remember. And there are all KINDS of organic chemicals in the world that came from very ancient life forms.

Is this different than the "stuff" found in the T-Rex bones? Pardon my ignorance, but I really know nothing about this subject.

No problem. All credible references suggest that the process of permineralization was occurring in this T-Rex fossil. It had apparently been slowed by silica-armoring of the material. This reduced the amount of water and other chemicals to continue the replacement and degradation. The time it takes to fossilize a bone may be quickly or very slow. There IS NO REQUIREMENT by evolution. Your example may be the same or not.

[aniso]

Such would be your agenda in this case. To make an obvious problem have "no meaning". I suppose ALL evidence of all time that gives support to a younger earth, or that man and dinos lived together at some point, is "meaningless" as well?

If there were valid evidence, it would not be meaningless. The problem is that there is no widely accepted evidence of this type.

[rogue06]

A couple of things. First, you need to provide a reference that actualy says that this DNA is intact. My bet is that you will not be able to do that. If it were the case, then Carico will have to admit that dinosaurs actually DID exist. Second, it is actually no big deal to find organic material that is even older than 65ma. There are actually some pollen and seeds that are older as I remember. And there are all KINDS of organic chemicals in the world that came from very ancient life forms.

My only source is the issue of "Discover Magazine" that I cited. It is #59 of the "Top 100 Science Stories of 2006," which begins on page 20. On page 53 under "Paleontology: Fossilized Frog Marrow Found," it says, "the red of the bone marrow and the yellow of the fatty marrow were clearly visible." A little further down, the author seems to ask, "Why has no one noticed this material - which may contain DNA and proteins - before?" (emphasis added). I'm just curious about whether or not this had anything to do with the discussion on what was found in the T-Rex bone.

Are you serious about Carico not believing that dinosaurs existed? If he's right I've got a massive collection of dinosaur teeth I need to get rid on eBay before anyone else finds out.

[Vigilante]

Evidence does not have to be "accepted". Evidence just IS. What you reject is the interpretation of the evidence and what it means.

[supersport]

Hey I have another challenge for you atheists/evolutionists:

Please show me ONE other instance -- before Mary Sweitzer's accidental discovery -- where soft tissue was even LOOKED for in dinosaurs. (By the way, I commend Sweitzer for not burying the evidence.) And by that I mean cutting into a dinosaur leg bone or some ribs and checking to see if organic material exists.

Please prove me wrong that evolutionary science is not completely corrupt to the core.

[aniso]

My only source is the issue of "Discover Magazine" that I cited. It is #59 of the "Top 100 Science Stories of 2006," which begins on page 20. On page 53 under "Paleontology: Fossilized Frog Marrow Found," it says, "the red of the bone marrow and the yellow of the fatty marrow were clearly visible." A little further down, the author seems to ask, "Why has no one noticed this material - which may contain DNA and proteins - before?" (emphasis added). I'm just curious about whether or not this had anything to do with the discussion on what was found in the T-Rex bone.

A clue might be in the title of the article. The word 'Fossilized' is prominent. I have no problem with preserving organic materials and even pigments, but to say that we have found intact DNA, bone or proteins in these cases is misleading. But I suppose that's the idea. If I were a YEC, I'd be angry.

Are you serious about Carico not believing that dinosaurs existed? If he's right I've got a massive collection of dinosaur teeth I need to get rid on eBay before anyone else finds out.

Yes, Carico is 'non-traditional' on this. And she is proud of it.

[aniso]

Evidence does not have to be "accepted". Evidence just IS.

Fine. Then there IS a huge amount of evidence that the earth is old.

What you reject is the interpretation of the evidence and what it means.

Well, then, give me a reason to completely ignore radiometric evidence and accept a young earth.

[aniso]

Hey I have another challenge for you atheists/evolutionists:

Oh, good. Another Gish Gallop. Ignore what's been posted and make new demands... Typical.

Please show me ONE other instance -- before Mary Sweitzer's accidental discovery -- where soft tissue was even LOOKED for in dinosaurs.

Actually, I remember a few years ago when someone surmised some fossilized internal organs in a dinosaur. "Fossilized" still being a key word.

(By the way, I commend Sweitzer for not burying the evidence.) And by that I mean cutting into a dinosaur leg bone or some ribs and checking to see if organic material exists.

Sporty, organic molecules are found in much older materials than dinosaurs. You are being absurd again...

Please prove me wrong that evolutionary science is not completely corrupt to the core.

Sporty, nothing will prove anything to you. You have made up your mind. And yet you accuse us of being closed minded. Here we have a case where you and others have been mislead by professional creationists and you simply dismiss the fact.

[grmorton]

Hey I have another challenge for you atheists/evolutionists:

Please show me ONE other instance -- before Mary Sweitzer's accidental discovery -- where soft tissue was even LOOKED for in dinosaurs. (By the way, I commend Sweitzer for not burying the evidence.) And by that I mean cutting into a dinosaur leg bone or some ribs and checking to see if organic material exists.

Please prove me wrong that evolutionary science is not completely corrupt to the core.

Try this from a 1933 book:

Charles Schuchert and Carl O. Dunbar, Textbook of Geology,
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1933), p. 435

"Among the Cretaceous reptiles, at least one large and
extraordinary dinosaur mummy (Trachodon annectens), which may be
seen in the American Museum of Natural History, New York
City."

© source where applicable

[rogue06]

Try this from a 1933 book:
Charles Schuchert and Carl O. Dunbar, Textbook of Geology,
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1933), p. 435
"Among the Cretaceous reptiles, at least one large and
extraordinary dinosaur mummy (Trachodon annectens), which may be
seen in the American Museum of Natural History, New York
City."

I just read somewhere about there being nearly a dozen fossilized dinosaur mummies being found over the years. Personally, I'm overwhelmed by the prospect of Pharoah T-Rex.

[supersport]

Try this from a 1933 book:

Charles Schuchert and Carl O. Dunbar, Textbook of Geology,
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1933), p. 435

"Among the Cretaceous reptiles, at least one large and
extraordinary dinosaur mummy (Trachodon annectens), which may be
seen in the American Museum of Natural History, New York
City."

© source where applicable

and what is that?????? What does that have to do with looking for soft tissue?

I guess my challenge goes unanswered -- I can't say I'm surprised because science is indeed corrupt and they have absolutely no interest in the truth...the only thing science is interested in is concocting a nonsense theory that makes enough sense to hoodwink a large segment of the population into thinking that life could come from a lifeless, stinking pond and that human beings are no more than bug-picking, tree-swinging apes. It's nausiating.

[aniso]

and what is that?????? What does that have to do with looking for soft tissue?

I guess my challenge goes unanswered -- I can't say I'm surprised because science is indeed corrupt and they have absolutely no interest in the truth...the only thing science is interested in is concocting a nonsense theory that makes enough sense to hoodwink a large segment of the population into thinking that life could come from a lifeless, stinking pond and that human beings are no more than bug-picking, tree-swinging apes. It's nausiating.

Ya know, what is nauseating is the arrogance some people have. This is actually too easy.

http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.html

You are correct however in detecting that there are some frauds around here...

[aniso]

and what is that?????? What does that have to do with looking for soft tissue?

I guess my challenge goes unanswered -- I can't say I'm surprised because science is indeed corrupt and they have absolutely no interest in the truth...the only thing science is interested in is concocting a nonsense theory that makes enough sense to hoodwink a large segment of the population into thinking that life could come from a lifeless, stinking pond and that human beings are no more than bug-picking, tree-swinging apes. It's nausiating.

(Yawn)More refutation of Sporty's contention.

http://www.blm.gov/education/00_fiel...urnal0516.html

Or maybe something a little bit older...

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Chengjiang.htm

[Dr.GH]

"After spotting the tissue in September 2004, McNamara, a Ph.D. student in paleobiology at University College Dublin, closely examined many other specimens that had been collected in the 1950s from the same Spanish sulfur mine. Working with colleagues from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Spain, and the U.S., she found evidence of marrow in 10% of the 56 adult frog fossils and in one of 15 salamanders."

Fossil Bone "Marrow" Found

By Erik Stokstad
ScienceNOW Daily News
2 August 2006

I would make a few observations; the fossils have been exposed for about 50 years, the fossils were excaved from a sulfur mine which is a very unusual preservation environment, we have no analysis (yet) that these are biological materials or that they are related to ancient frogs.

But the real laugh was Mary Higby Schweitzer quoted as saying "Maybe it is marrow tissue, maybe not," she says. "It will be interesting to see what their further research shows."

Now if she only was as careful about her own research.

[Viktor Scott]

Hi Sport,

Why do you keep abandoning threads only to start new ones or link-spam others?


That is, in part, what got you canned at CF.