[_ Old Earth _] 70 million year old tissue found

[reznwerks]

By Randolph Schmid

"Washington - Scientists who had to break a dinosaur bone to remove it from its sandstone location say they have recovered 70-million-year-old soft tissue from inside the bone."

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1 ... 741985B251

 

[Asimov]

*cue Creationist fallacy in 3, 2, 1.....*

 

[peace4all]

ya i was reading about that. neeto :P we neve rknow what amazing things science can help discover

 

[flinx]

Here are photographs of the soft tissues recovered from the T.rex bone. In photograph A of the first series the arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic and was described in the report at being “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shapeâ€Â. Photograph C shows fibrous structures still present in the bone.

The first photograph in the second series was described as a blood vessel obtained from the bone tissue. The second photograph shows material that was squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, which contains structures that appear to be blood cells.

I have to laugh when I think that evolutionists will choose to deny the evidence before their eyes and will continue to believe with religious faith in their evolutionary time scale. It really is laughable to think that these tissues could continue to remain intact, and flexible, and undecayed for 70 MILLION YEARS!

The fact is that creationists have just been handed a gift on a silver platter. It will be possible to show these photographs for years to come and many will believe the evidence before them. They will realize that the 70 million year timescale for these fossils is just a figment of the evolutionist’s imagination.

 

[Asimov]

Right on cue, flinx!!

Once again you fail to realise that this isn't uncommon. If you have a mineralised hard hull around soft tissue in a dry area, it will be preserved. Nothing amazing or surprising about it, flinx.

 

[flinx]

I don’t believe any human being truly has any concept of how long 1 million years is, let alone 70 million years. In human experience we know that just 5,000 years is sufficient to turn a city made of stone into a dusty plain. And yet these bones are supposed to have lain in the earth for 14,000 times that 5,000-year period. And in all that vast time these blood vessels, and blood cells, and fibrous tissues are supposed to have resisted decay and remained intact and flexible. That strains credulity.

Evolutionists already have a faith commitment to long ages of time. If any evidence comes along that threatens that faith commitment they’re naturally going to dismiss it or turn a blind eye to it. But there are a great many people who have no faith commitment to those long ages. And I’m sure those people will find these photos to be powerful evidence against the evolutionary paradigm.

 

[Asimov]

I don’t believe any human being truly has any concept of how long 1 million years is, let alone 70 million years. In human experience we know that just 5,000 years is sufficient to turn a city made of stone into a dusty plain. And yet these bones are supposed to have lain in the earth for 14,000 times that 5,000-year period. And in all that vast time these blood vessels, and blood cells, and fibrous tissues are supposed to have resisted decay and remained intact and flexible. That strains credulity.

Evolutionists already have a faith commitment to long ages of time. If any evidence comes along that threatens that faith commitment they’re naturally going to dismiss it or turn a blind eye to it. But there are a great many people who have no faith commitment to those long ages. And I’m sure those people will find these photos to be powerful evidence against the evolutionary paradigm.

Hahaha...what a joke. We have preserved human remains that are thousands of years old, mummified.

What makes you think that something contained with no air getting in, no water, no bacteria, no outside forces would not be preserved?

 

[unred typo]

asimov wrote:

Hahaha...what a joke. We have preserved human remains that are thousands of years old, mummified.

What makes you think that something contained with no air getting in, no water, no bacteria, no outside forces would not be preserved?

Yeah, those fossilized outer shells are better than Tuppaware. I don’t know why we don’t use stoneware to keep leftovers in. :wink: Besides, thousands of years, millions of years, billions of years…who’s counting? :roll:

At least now we can date it with carbon dating, right? :-D

 

[Barbarian]

You'd get no answer at all, or some absurd number with carbon dating. It only works out to 50,000 years or so, at best.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

You'd get no answer at all, or some absurd number with carbon dating. It only works out to 50,000 years or so, at best.

There are other non radiocarbon things they can do with organic tissue, but it's not likely to turn up anything.
Well I hope they take a DNA sample. It'd be fun to see a few Synth. Rex at the zoo.

 

[Diencephalon]

Dinosaur DNA and modern medical science... and zoos...what could possibly go wrong?

Diencephalon "You didn't say the magic word, uh uh uh.."

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

You'd get no answer at all, or some absurd number with carbon dating. It only works out to 50,000 years or so, at best.

Unless it actually was less than 50,000 years old.....

 

[sheseala]

They should carbon date it anyway for the fun of it.

 

[unred typo]

sheseala wrote:

They should carbon date it anyway for the fun of it.

Exposing a few million years of error is never fun. :-D I don't see how they could avoid it though. It would be nice to have a real blind test where samples of known thousand year old tissue are submitted with the supposedly million year old samples and not given hints that it should be dated much, much, much, much, much older. :wink:

Here are some cut and paste phrases we probably will seeing more of:
“This new evidence gives us a drastically new pictureâ€Â
“It contradicts conventional evolutionary theoryâ€Â
“startling discovery for scientists who have long believed€ 8-)

 

[sheseala]

Yes, exposing a few million years of error would be fun. You'd receive a medal for your work.

I just also want them to do it to find out if it is a hoax or not. I mean, it'd suck if it was just ostrich tissue. It wouldn't be all that long though to find out, someone is bound do DNA testing. Hopefully there is DNA left.

 

[unred typo]

Sheseala wrote:

Yes, exposing a few million years of error would be fun. You'd receive a medal for your work.

I just also want them to do it to find out if it is a hoax or not. I mean, it'd suck if it was just ostrich tissue. It wouldn't be all that long though to find out, someone is bound do DNA testing. Hopefully there is DNA left.

It depends on which side of the error you’re on whether it’s fun or not. :
LOL. I doubt if even a supposedly inept Christian paleontologist could mistake an ostrich thigh bone for that of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. If it’s that easy to fool us, we’re in big trouble. :roll:

 

[Asimov]

The fact is that creationists have just been handed a gift on a silver platter. It will be possible to show these photographs for years to come and many will believe the evidence before them. They will realize that the 70 million year timescale for these fossils is just a figment of the evolutionist’s imagination.

Just a clarification, the soft tissue found inside was partially fossilized...