What is the Latest On Dr Schweitzer Trex Soft Tissue Find?

I was not aware the smithsonian mag was religious. Noted Here is the link I was reading:Dinosaur Shocker | Science| Smithsonian MagazineDo you have any "real" sources that are totally unbiased?

Almost 2 years, in fact (Joined: 08-07-2012But it doesn't appear you learned much in that time ...Can you define evolution? can you describe what the theory of evolution is? can you describe what the difference between abiogenesis and evolution is? can you describe what the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is?I doubt it ... but you could prove me wrong ...Enjoy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

quote:

---

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.

​

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.

---

That article is from May 2006.

You are teh general public, so they are written for you to understand ...which obviously did not work. What makes you think more detailed evidence is going to be easier for you to grasp than what is presented to the "general public" when you haven't read the most recent findings? True, but you didn't even google ONE article, apparently.

Now that link describes the demineralization process, and also describes how creationists lie about Schweitzer's work. So how carefully were you reading it?

Yes, other people can use google for you.From the abstract of Schweitzer's paper:

Wow! This is the first time you replied to me without name calling or rude comments Thanks. It was actually a really good explanation.Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

This is, of course, not true. You're welcome.

For some reason lots of creationists think that adding lots of smily faces somehow would enhance ridiculously crazy ideas. Wonder why? Trying to sell snake oil or what? Second hand car salesmen?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Thanks Prissie
You offend many second hand car salesmen out there
It's easy to jump on the secular science bandwagon. It is much harder to be a real scientist and question everything. Einstein's theories were a little revolutionary too.(here comes the, "are you comparing yourself to Einstein?")

And it's easier yet to be a creationist and ignore 99.9999% of the evidence and misinterpret the rest.

You keep talking about "real science" as if it was somehow different from "secular science". Maybe you could tell us what you think "real science" is, and why you think secular scientists aren't doing it.

Yes, Einstein did produce non-controversial results. But he did it by expanding on his hypothesis in ways that are the essence of the scientific method, and not by babbling.And yes, the "are you Einstein" question seems appropriate here, because it is a well accepted indicator of crank behavior. But feel free to substitute Galileo if you want.

This is response to ChristianGuy15's Message 39 in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread. The preservation was indeed unexpected, but in the sense of requiring a rare sequence of events in unlikely conditions, not in the sense of breaking any laws of science. If you read through this thread you'll get a pretty good sense of how it happened.--Percy

This is response to ChristianGuy15's Message 39 in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread. Hey there ChristianGuy. You addressed this question to me over in my thread on earth science curriculum and I would like to respond here where I can do it and respect the productive forum rules that say we keep threads on topic.First, I'd like to make it clear that I am just a guy studying what is written. I'm not a paleontologist, I haven't seen the bones and if I did see the bones I wouldn't have a clue how to investigate them.One of the first techniques I use to determine credibility when reading, studying and investigating is to ask for sources of claims and then see if they can be produced. I want to know if what they say is true. I'm going to try that here:You've made two hard assertions in your question to me.1: That "atheistic scientists are unhappily admitting" the substance of this find.
and
2: That the assumption of the find (Heme compounds discovered in extremely old earth bones) violates the "laws of science".Let's take a look at your assertion #1:I've read as many papers and articles (I didn't say news reports) as I can find that quote other scientists regarding Schweitzer's discovery. I simply can't find a quote from ANYONE that sounds like they are "unhappily admitting" anything. A tenet of science is skepticism and thus good scientists are skeptical. What I find are quotes from the scientific body who were initially very skeptical and now less so as time and research has moved almost a decade forward. What I also find is guarded enthusiasm over the fact that what is being learned might allow more discoveries from old bones than ever thought possible. In essence I find cautious enthusiasm rather than unhappiness.Following are some links I refer to above:
Dinosaur Shocker | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained | Live Science
Just a moment...
BioLogos - Not Found (404) - BioLogosI'd like to add (in the unfortunate case you don't read the papers I linked) that Mary Schweitzer, the researcher who discovered this is a born again Christian who is deeply troubled by the way some creationist web sites and personalities have misled people regarding her work. Following is a quote from her (see links for context).

quote:

---

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.

---

Now to assertion #2: Please quote the "law of science" that precludes the finding of these compounds in old earth bones (helpful hint: there isn't one, but don't take my word for it please).What I'm inviting you to do ChristianGuy15 is to think about the things you read rather than just accept them. Cross check them. Dig to find out if the claims they make are consistent with the truth. If you don't find that the bulk of scientists are unhappy about the find, why would you trust someone who tells you otherwise? If there turns out to be no known law of science that precludes such a find, why would you trust a source that tells you there is?It is this skill of skepticism and cross checking that I hope to instill in people I know who believe in a YE. Accurate conclusions will automatically follow.Food for thought.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.