What's the creationists thought on this?

Be fair Pressie, creationists in general have distorted the work of a really wide number of researchers in many disparate fields. It is unreasonable to expect any one particular creationist to be familiar with all of them.TTFN,WK

It could be true, Wounded King, but what I find so unconvincing about it is that the soft dino tissue is perceived by creationists as one of their star 'evidences' they claim to have for a young earth. It usually is one of the first 'arguments' they present. That's how I got to know about her years ago; I was referred to her work by a creationist! (He also missed the word "fossilized" in her research).

Yes, in ALL honesty I am saying i've never heard of the woman before. All I know is that soft tissue was found inside a T.rex femur. I didn't know who discovered it until after Dr Adequate brought it to my attnetion. As you can see in my question to purpledawn, I did not mention any particular Scientists': Im sorry if i've lead you to believe that I knew who she was. I do now. I really wasn't aware that I needed to know every Scientist who makes these discoveries. I suppose it would not have come up if she hadn't been a former YEC. In all of the Creationist sites I go to I've never searched for the topic. I've just seen it referenced in comments and articles.It could have been Mr Rogers for all I knew. I just know it happened.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi Chuck77I believe you when you say that you've never heard of Dr. Schweitzer. I did not try to say that you are a liar. I just find it very unusual for a staunch creationist to have never heard of Dr. Schweitzer and her work.I tried to convey the message that very hard creationists who come to forums like these, usually are liars.You, however, seem to be one of the victims of creationist lies. You keep on believing creationists, even after being pointed to examples of their lying. I think that you've never questioned creationism, because of your fear of hell.Chuck77, you don't realize that the overwhelming majority of Christian scientists also accept the Theory of Evolution and an old earth as facts. You, personally, can't put the two together, but the vast majority of Christian scientists have done it and see absolutely no conflict at all!Creationists pretend to do science and you believe them, notwithstanding reality. You don't have enough knowledge to realize that their pseudo-science is actually a very profitable industry. They make a lot of money out of your ignorance. Education can change your perception and open up a whole new world for you.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistaaaaakes!

I think that Pressie's incredulity comes from the fact that anyone reading about those fossils should have read her name several times.It is a little like me talking about evolution and then saying: "Who's Darwin?".

And now back to the matter at hand. Do you see that creationists are not telling the truth when they claim that scientists have found soft tissue present in dinosaur remains? (I believe that Ray Comfort has even claimed that they've found actual dinosaur flesh and blood.)

---

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

As a rule of thumb, precision of a couple of percent is a reasonable result in most dating systems. U-Th-Pb dating systems can achieve sub-1% accuracy, mostly because the half-lives are known more precisely than for other isotopes (bombs and reactors, ya know).See Neodymium-142 Evidence for Hadean Mafic Crust (free registration required). The rocks involved are constrained by the geological setting to be older than rocks that date to 3817 ± 16 My from U-Pb discordia dating, a claimed precision of about 0.4%. The rocks themselves were dated using Sm-Nd isochrons at 3819 ± 270 My and another set were dated at 3840 ± 280 My, both about 7% error. That's fairly high uncertainty, but these rocks have been through a lot and it's difficult to extract the information.See Earliest Evidence of Life for a brief explanation of why these carbon particles are thought to be evidence of life. That article was published at about the same time as Neodymium-142 Evidence for Hadean Mafic Crust, and does not take those findings into account.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I think you are rude and your horns are showing.I made no assertions really other than the research was interesting.What that research does demonstrate is that evolutionists are always grabbing at straws. These evo researchers really have no idea......When was The Faith Delivered? - Apologetics Press

The matter at hand is that evolutionists discard evidence that is uncomfortable.A dino was most certainly found with tissue and bones in tact."Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, TissueSo in reply to your nasty attitude I say that many evolutionists are liars when it suits them.All this talk on dinos being around 65mya appears to be debunked nonsense that evolutionists will clutch to with their dying breath.http://www.physorg.com/...urvived-mass-extinction-years.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/01/110127141707.htmIn other words you may as well post evidence from Alice in Wonderland as hold up this theoretical woffle as evidence.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Guess what?If a dinosaur were found alive today it would still not falsify the Theory of Evolution.When you can understand why that is true you will begin to be able to actually discuss the subject.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It's not clear to me what your problem is with scientists finding mineralized skin and soft tissue and even some proteins? This does not negate the Theory of Evolution. In fact, finding collagen Protein in the T-Rex gave scientists even MORE support for the ancestry that dinosaurs share with birds. Finding these proteins and soft tissues allows for scientists to strengthen their understanding of Evolution. Nothing in the ToE says that skin does not mineralize or mummify or whether we'll be able to extract proteins from million year old fossils. If you're looking for how or why that happens, your best bet is to study geology with a good dose of biology.

Can it be?!
Did you reference an article that you didn't read??Oh yes.
It appears that you did.Here is a direct quote from that article:

quote:

---

Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it.

---

(Emphasis mine)So, to clarify:
No. A dinosaur was most certainly NOT found with tissue and bones intact.Time and again I see this kind of dishonest quote-mining and intentional misrepresentation of evidence from anti-evolutionists.
Is your god really so very weak that you have to lie to support his existence?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Mazzy, the article you quote says, "Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it."Does that sound like "intact tissue," or more like "intact fossilized tissue?" There is a distinction there.....And I wonder where/if the formal paper on "dakota" was published?

Hey Coragyps,Here is the paper link: Proceedings of the Royal Society (October 2009, Vol. 276 no. 1672)Hopefully Mazzy will see this and perhaps read it?

Oh Mazzy, Mazzy. You really screwed up this time.You read the article on your dear Creationist site and it said just what you wanted to hear, didn't it!You did not bother to follow or read the original works this intentionally misleading lying creationist screed was supposed to be reporting, did you. Well since your own cited source was indeed an outright misrepresentation of the facts then Pressie told the truth in his message, didn't he.

quote:

---

It's always easy to debunk creationists, as they only have one method: deceiving by outright lying. They project their way of thinking on others, because they think that everyone is as ignorant (or plain stupid) as they are themselves.

---

Message 101Maybe in polite social circles over cheese and a fine wine telling an unpleasent truth may be considered "rude" but not in a science forum on EVC.Deceiving by outright lying. And then you go and give a glaring example of precisely his point.Well done, Mazzy!As for the horns part, well I don't know Pressie that well but if done right horns can be very fashionable.
Edited by AZPaul3, : fix link