What's the creationists thought on this?

Thanks greatly, DBlevins!Mazzy, I recommend the paper DB found for us. If you will read it and ask questions, I can answer the chemistry ones - I do chemistry for a living. Other folks here can answer geology or anatomy questions. I don't think you will find much discarding of evidence. Try us out.

Back in the real world, it was evolutionists who discovered the fossil, evolutionists who dug it up, evolutionists who freed it from the matrix, evolutionists who made a TV program about it, and evolutionists who published the National Geographic article which brought its existence to your attention in the first place.Meanwhile it is you who is ignoring the evidence, namely that the skin was mineralized. And your saying that would be more convincing if you could point to any actual lie. Or even something that you thought was a lie. Instead you have cited an evolutionist article which you apparently think is true. No it doesn't, for two reasons: first, it is not nonsense; and second it has not been debunked.

My apologies. I did not intend to be rude, and I'm sorry if my tone was offensive to you.I see that others have already addressed the issue of the possible survival of soft tissue dinosaur remains. A full reading of the source material does make it clear that the remains in question were in fact mineralized - that is to say, fossils - and not soft tissue per se.Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objection you and other creationists have to the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years is that this is evidence that contradicts the notion of a young earth. I've mostly seen this claim of fresh dinosaur remains as part of a general denial of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques. Is that what you're objecting to?The two articles you cite in the later part of your post are about evidence that not all species of dinosaur went extinct about 65 million years ago, but that at least one line survives for another 700,000. I can't see that being able to determine that a hadrosaur bone is 64.8 million years old as opposed to 65 or 66 million goes very far to support the belief that dinosaurs actually went extinct only a few thousand years ago.Interestingly enough, a major point of both articles is how this example shows how much more accurate dating techniques have become.Edited by ZenMonkey, : Clarity of expression.

---

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

Hi MazzyThere's nothing rude in pointing out the fact that creationists lie. You were shown exactly where they lie.Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. By pointing out the lies, hopefully a few creationists would be shocked out of their delusion.As for the horns part of your post, I don't really know what you mean by it.Anyway, my local rugby team is called the Blue Bulls. Sometimes I do go to the rugby stadium with real bulls' horns glued to the blue plastic helmet I wear. Just to show my support. Thousand of us do it over here.What's your problem with horns, anyway? Lots of animals do grow them, naturally. Unfortunately humans don't. I would actually enjoy going to the rugby with two natural blue horns growing out of my skull. I would then really be a proud Blue Bull!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistakeEdited by Pressie, : Added wordsEdited by Pressie, : Added words

And I'd point out that most of those folks are also members of various churches, temples, and what have you. Believers in God. Evolution has not weakened their faith - why does it seem that it weakens yours, Mazzy?

Apologies for posting off topic message.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : WarningEdited by deerbreh, : Message withdrawn because it has been deemed off topic.

Quote ZenMonkey ZenMonkey, I am not a scientist and I need to rely on the varacity of the information that is online and in research papers. I also did not mean to be rude here or elsewhere.This is a snip from the article:"The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died."This is what the article states. If it is incorrrect information that is not my fault. If the truth has been exaggerated to suit the paradigm, that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available.My point was around the unliklihood of 'soft tissues' being found that dates back anywhere near 65my. In other words my point was that if it is 'soft tissue' it is more likely to be much more recent than suggested. This assertion is based on common sense rather than scientifically knowing just how long 'soft tissue' will remain soft tissue for in any particular environment. The researchers appeared to be surprised themselves to find this 'soft tissue'.If researchers or related articles have misrepresented the information I use, please refute as you have. I can then add this to my folder of misrepresetations.I am not young earth so that is an erraneous assumption. I am only young earth when it comes to mankind, so when dinos lived is of no consequence to my beliefs. However, 'soft tissue' over 60myo produces some skepticism for me, regardless of the fact that it does not matter to me.If there is an article that refutes this soft tissue being such but is rather some fossilized something or another then I am happy to take on the refute.I guess that in the end if researchers cannot agree on what they have found, that says something else again.

Arguments from common sense are logical fallacies. Many findings in science have gone against common sense. For example, light can be both a particle and a wave. This goes against common sense, but that doesn't mean it is false.This T. rex was found in a very well documented strata that is one of the most accurately dated strata around. That fossil is as old as they say it is. Whatever material they find in it has survived that long. No amount of incredulity refutes the facts. Never trust secondary sources where science is involved. Secondary sources get a lot of things seriously wrong. Always go to the primary source. In the primary research paper it describes how the fossil was soaked for a long period of time before anything soft was observed.

You provided 3 links in Message 114.
None of them contain the text you are quoting above.But the three links you provided DO explain that it was mineralised tissue:

quote:

---

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

---

I am left wondering why you had to find a 4th web-site to support your assertions, but then claim "that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available."
There WAS information available: YOU provided it.
But when it failed to support your claims, you went looking elsewhere.You can't claim ignorance of the evidence when YOU have linked information refuting your own position.

Quote Just to finish off what I have to say....I had a look at the quote that speaks to the 'soft tissue' being demineralized and a bit appears to have been missed.... I had best acknowledge that I at least read the info....Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present - PMC"Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. The present study attempts to trace the occurrence of these four components in bone from specimens spanning multiple geological time periods and varied depositional environments."The mention of hollow and pliable blood vessels being found appears misleading if in fact all they found was not much at all.Mary may be YEC turned evolutionist but John Sanford was an evolutionist turned YEC.So basically my creationist response to what this find means to creationists is nothing at all unless one is a strict YEC. The only way this would present a concern to me is if the dating was accurate and robust and you placed mankind with dinosaurs 65mya.Given that evolutionists refute any evidence of dinosaurs and mankind coexisting 'old earthers' don't have a problem but may explain why some are not total YEC's.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

We don't have to refute it. There's simply no evidence.Someone paints a cartoon dinosaur on a jug and Creationists think they have something.Like everything else they trot out, it's good for a laugh and little else.

quote Taq Are you suggesting there is no common sense in evolutionary theory? I think there is, or should be. Quantum physics will make sense once they understand it. If light is both a particle and a wave you should not have any trouble understanding how God can cause to happen while not being physically present.In fact I think some posters have refuted themselves on this one. The find spoken to cannot be both 'soft tissue' and just demineralized minerals.I do not need to refute the dating for dinosaurs as when they lived is no conflict for me. I refute dating methods generally.What I do have a problem with speaking and posting to part of a research paper that speaks to demineralized remnants when the next phrase speaks to presevation of blood vessels. It seems to me it cannot be both, so 'yes' that seems to escape common sense, as does the skepticism tied to pliable fibre 65myo or more, and I don't think I need a PHD is science to say so. I have given information of evolutionary researchers that have problems with it all. I also reserve the right to be skeptical like some of your evo researchers, whether it is a matter of common sense or not.See this bit below"Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence of still-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought.."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/.../274/1607/183.fullThis info above suggests strongly to me that what was found was actually 'soft tissue' as well as demineralized stuff.It appears that I have information that suggests there is dispute as to the validity of claiming preservation of soft tissue past 1 million years, as never seen before. The link below speaks to it."It was at this momentwhen a fragment of 68 million-year-old dinosaur was rendered as strings of letters decipherable only by the most labyrinthine mathematical algorithmsthat empirical certainty crumbled. What followed was a complex, contentious, and peculiarly modern scientific argument, one more about software and statistics than bones and pickaxes.Before long, however, a distinctly human subplot emerged. Within 16 months, three separate rebuttals appeared, two in Science itself. Many researchers were skeptical of the quality of Asara's data and doubted that collagen could survive so long, even partially intact. "You're talking about something a hundred times older than anything ever sequenced," says Steven Salzberg, director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland. "If you have extraordinary results, they require extraordinary evidence."
Origin of Species: How a T. Rex Femur Sparked a Scientific Smackdown | WIREDWhat is apparent from my being a YEC when it comes to mankind is that I have no faith in these algorithms, past population size algorithms, the fossils that sometimes date the strata eg Jehol birds etc that suggest mankind is more than 6,000yo. However this is not the thread topic.I did go to the source, as you suggested, and that only presented more problems....as what they found was soft fibrous tissue. It is either soft tissue or it is not.Interestingly, some evolutionary researchers do have a problem with this find as illustrated above. I do not appear to be the only skeptic.As I said, it makes no difference to my beliefs so long as you are not placing mankind at the campfire with T Rex 65mya.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Hi Mazzy, nice to see you in a different thread.I hope that it's clearer now that what Mary Schweitzer recovered was not the sort of soft tissue remains that would cast doubt on the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for some 66 million years, and not a few thousand or even a few hundred as some creationists have claimed.The thing is, dinosaurs do matter. If you accept that the established dating of the fossilized remains of dinosaurs is in fact valid, then you have no grounds for doubting that the dating of human remains is valid as well. You can't claim that a tape measure is accurate when it says that the couch is 7 feet wide, but that the same tape measure is wrong when it says that the living room is 15 feet long. You don't get to pick and choose. And that's a serious problem for you. Accurate dating of various human and pre-human remains show a clear transition from more primitive "ape-like" forms to modern humans. No overlap. No H. ergaster hanging around with Australopithicus or with H. sapiens either.Now, I will quickly point out that this thread is not about human evolution at all, so we shouldn't derail the topic by continuing this particular conversation. The point was just that those creationists who claimed the this discovery cast doubt on the fossil record were wrong.

---

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

quote Nuggin I think what is funnier is not being able to discern the results of the research that one posts and speaks to, nor keep on topic.If there is no evidence for mankind being around with dinos 65myo you and me are still dancing on the same page, Nuggin, like it or not.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

And it's only got worse.I'm going to close this topic down, say in about 15 minutes. There are at least 4 existing topics specifically targeted at the "Dino soft tissue" theme. I'll pick one to "bump" and also supply links to the others (and also link back to this topic).By the way, did anyone else notice that the topic title is pretty much cutting edge worthless?CLOSING IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES (UNLESS MY MIND WANDERS OFF, WHICH DOES HAPPEN).AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "5" to "4" - There was one topic in my database that I was unable to track down.

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.