His question reminded me of a picture taken of a recent discovery. They say a picture is worth a thousand words (years?) so check the pic below:
What you are looking at comes from the inside of a T. Rex thigh bone found in Montana in 2005. Slide A shows tissue fragments that are still elastic. Slide B shows a rather 'fresh' tissue appearance. Slide C shows regions of bone where fibrous structure is still present!
The problem (for some scientists) is that T. Rex is thought by many to have been extinct for 65 million years - in fact the very bone this tissue sample comes from is said to be around 70 million years old in the National Geographic article!
Does it not beggar belief that this elastic, fresh looking tissue could have really lasted for the last 70 million years?
Dinosaurs on the earth 4,000 years ago?
Here's a better question - can someone with complete honesty and scientific integrity expect me to believe this tissue sample is 70 million years old?
Damon wonders what kind of person Palin is because she believes in Creationism. I have to wonder what kind of person it takes to believe in carbon dating and evolution. Probably the same kind of people that think God overlooks homosexuality and abortion and you can get into Heaven based simply on the fact you are a "nice person".
ReplyDeleteAnd if we want to get technical, there are some 'prehistoric', dinosaur type creatures STILL on the planet. For years the Coelacanth (fish) was thought to be extinct - until they caught a live one. There's the recent finding of a prehistoric shark...the list goes on.
ReplyDeleteDamon's statement sadly reveals how spiritually blind he is...
You can't be questioning the faith of the evolutionists can you? ;-0
ReplyDeletethe audacity! ;^)
ReplyDeleteWhere did you find those pictures? Who made them, and did they provide any further discussion of what the pictures are showing?
ReplyDeletejust Google "T Rex soft tissue" - they're available several places...
ReplyDeleteFound the pictures (MSNBC), but my queries have been less productive in tracking down their source and an analysis.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can find suggests that the pictures are a bit misleading - those pictures are of microscopic sizes, and the red materials are fossilized materials, not bone marrow or something like that.
From what I can gather, the soft materials aren't the original ligaments and tissue, but rather a chemically-changed material that is pliable, more like a fossilization that wound up with a soft material instead of a hard material. There were proteins found in the material, but they were trace amounts, not entire ligaments made of proteins.
The only direct source I could find of the examination's description the material runs like this:
"[examination of the sample] only produced a minuscule amount of remnant protein, and the protein was in a mixture of other material that had remained after the extraction process."
I think that "elastic, fresh looking tissue" is a bit misleading since that "fresh looking tissue" (red stuff) is rock as far as I can tell.
fresh "looking" is the operative word. And I believe it was stated that the material was from inside of the bone.
ReplyDeleteHere, feast your eyes.
AiG is promoting the same error in regard to these pictures. (they should know better) The red is rock (as far as I can find out) and they call it "fresh looking", certainly suggesting that it is marrow or something like that. It's not. It's red rock.
ReplyDeleteDitto for the fibrous stuff on the right - it's also fossilized, but not fossilized into a solid block, but they certainly suggest that it's fresh tissue.
Same for the elastic stuff in the left picture, calling it "tissue fragment". It's not. It's a compound that formed from the tissue, not tissue.
I don't have an issue with the age, just an issue with silly inaccuracies that make Christians look stupid.
Ummm - I don't know how to say this any more gently J, but you're wrong. MSNBC reports it the exact same way - soft tissue - not red rock, not bone - soft tissue, blood vessel's bro.
ReplyDeleteSilly inaccuracies that make people look silly run both ways I suppose.
Yes, I know MSNBC reported that. They happen to be wrong too. Typical non-scientific reporters making a dramatic report.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect better from casual reporters, but I do expect better from a science-oriented organization like AiG.
The full article is in Science:
“Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein”
Authors: Mary H. Schweitzer, North Carolina State University; John M. Asara, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School; Jack Horner, Montana State University; et al
Published: April 13, 2007, in Science
Couldn't read the full article without some type of subscription - but I see it is still referred to as "fibrous" tissue in the article you reference.
ReplyDeleteMSNBC is reporting what was told them by scientists - if you find a scientist who is sold on the 'millions and millions of years' of course they are going to see everything through the lense of evolution...
Absolutely it's still fibrous, but it's not like it's fibrous flesh like we think of it - a chunk of tendon or something like that. It is fibrous tissue that has been mostly transformed by chemical reactions, but not so far transformed that it is solid mineral. Its transformation has only progressed part way and it is still elastic.
ReplyDeleteIt only has traces of proteins still in them. The media tosses around terms like "fresh looking" or "fresh tissue" and AiG is using media science, not good science.
You won't find those terms in the Science paper, and I suspect that whoever gave the main interview probably didn't use the terms either. Here is what is said about the materials:
"the tissue contains remnants of the molecules produced by the dinosaur, though highly altered."
"the T. rex sample, ... only produced a miniscule amount of remnant protein, and the protein was in a mixture of other material"
AiG has a great goal, but their scientific rigor in pursuing it leaves something to be desired.
well of course you wouldn't hear atheistic evolutionists admit that it looks 'fresh' - but that doesn't change the fact that it does look fresh. Certainly no where near 70 million years old.
ReplyDeleteThe source you're citing is merely one interpretation of the data, btw - that's not "God's Word" on the issue. I've read several sources - including the LA Times (today in fact) who interviewed scientists who examined the tissue - it is described as soft and 'rubbery'. But they also repeatedly say that they couldn't believe the tissue could survive "tens of millions of years" (of course, they have their evolution lenses on).
They also can't agree on what it is they are looking at either. Scientists massively disagree on this (even within the evolutionary circles)- some even reportedly refuse to take a side, saying neither side is "convincing" - and even Dr. Schwietzer said that the protein looked exactly like they would expect dinosaur tissue to look.
Bottom line - while you keep saying AiG is using 'faulty science' - that is wrong because they report the same thing as many evolutionary scientists are reporting.
If one has an old earth view, J, then naturally they don't want any evidence to point to the fact that dinosaurs were on the earth 'thousands' not 'millions' of years ago.
The 'fresh' looking tissue sample still stands.
"Looks fresh?" That's part of the problem - those pictures are misleading if taken out of their description. They are seriously microscopic and stained to the different colors - their fresh "look" is artificial. Without reading any of the descriptions, a person can look at the pictures and say "Yeah, it looks fresh", but it's a deceiving look - an error that is propagated by newspaper reporters and passed on by AiG. AiG is not saying what the scientists are saying, but rather what the newspaper reporters are saying.
ReplyDeleteThe papers use the terms you've said, but they aren't talking about fresh tissue in the way that media reporters are saying (and that AiG is passing along). Yes, it's rubbery, soft, etc. That is taken by the media as meaning something like "original meat tissue". That's not what the scientists mean, and if the reporters (or AiG) would read the descriptions and papers, they would realize that.
The descriptions of tissue make up all use phrases like "recovered vessels were fragmentary and extremely altered" and "preservation of original but altered molecular components".
If you have some source that has investigated the tissue and is saying that it is original dinosaur tissue, then point them out, but so far the studies seem to indicate otherwise.
The stuff was hard and dried but after it was treated, it regained pliability. Likewise these things are in the sub-sub-millimeter range, and yet AiG is using phrases like "obvious to the naked eye" when describing this stuff. It's not even visible to the naked eye!
There are many times that I cringe to be on the same side of the creation issue as AiG because they make such stupid remarks. They're supposed to be a scientific organization, but they use newspapers as their sources. It doesn't help the cause of Christ to be shown wrong or using media-level science; when they do put out something that is solidly factual, people blow them off because they've been wrong so often before.
I have to disagree - what I'm reading is being reported by papers and journals, yes - but they are quoting scientists who've done the research in these tissue samples. That the sample is very small is not even relevant - the sample is what it is - it shows some soft tissue that defies the millions and millions of years dating. If something is truly that old, then it should be all rock by this time. The fact that part of it is not - is incredible - regardless of the size of it.
ReplyDeleteAiG is not being irresponsible - they are quoting the same scientists that I'm reading in other places. I think you just happen to agree with the side of the research that takes the side of an old earth - that's your perogative to believe what you want - but it's not wrong to say these samples have "fresh" appearance or to quote the scientists who say it's "rubbery" or "soft tissue".