DNA & SOFT TISSUE CONFIRMED IN 68 "MILLION" YEAR T-REX !

by Perry 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  No, only someone who took the ancient, distilled-from-much-older-oral-traditions, many-times-copied, many-times-translated writings of a thousands-of-years gone tribe of nomadic desert shepherds as the literal, inerrant, perfect Word of an angry, jealous, petty, insecure, rage-filled, vengeant God, in opposition of every shred of unified evidence produced in the last three hundred years in the fields of astronomy, geology, biology, phsyics, hydrology, radiology, paleontology, and meteorology, the work of many, many thousands of learned men and women who arrived at the same conclusions completely independently, using completely unrelated discoveries from a broad, diverse set of scientific disciplines in both the hard and soft sciences, all of which completely and harmoniously agree with each other, would do that.

  Holy crap... that's the longest sentence I've ever seen!

  But so true. Pretty much every field of science. (Including mathematics believe it or not.) disproves the flood, and proves that the earth is billions of years old.

  IF we ignored all that other evidence completely. And the only thing we had to determine the age of the earth was this fossilized dino flesh, it still would be inconclusive at best.

  Lore
• 

  Arthur

  All of the dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood? Great. If all of the thousands of species of dinosaur were alive at the same time; why didn't Noah at least take one species aboard the ark? Why bring aboard thousands of species of spiders, beetles, rodents, and primates; yet not bring aboard a single species of dinosaur? Maybe it was because they were drinking, fornicating, and merry-making with the Nephilim.
• 

  Leolaia

  Maybe the dinosaurs were the Nephilim?

  THEORY: NEPHILIM WERE DINOSAURS Has anyone ever considered, that the fallen angels were spirits, who chose to rebel against God in the great "war in the heavens," as described in Revelations, in the HOLY BIBLE? Is it that much of a stretch of the imagination, to suggest that the nephilim were in fact dinosaurs? Their bones can be found in the archeologic and geologic record, which was what Genesis chater 6 was describing, not the product of fallen angels, nor of the Annunaki as sons of God.

  http://www.angelfire.com/movies/UFO/content/page40.html
• 

  Leolaia

  For what it's worth, here are some quotes from one of Schweitzer's articles.

  On how dinosaur soft tissue was probably preserved:

  "First and foremost, the protected microenvironments of dense cortical bone may work against rapid degradation, and may allow sufficient time before degradation for the formation of molecular cross-links that stabilize organic remains....Free radicals, owing to their unstable electron state, will react rapidly with organic molecules to form peroxides, which trigger chain reactions that form durable, usually irreversible cross-linkages (Schafer et al. 2000). The hypothesis presented here is that these chain reactions are triggered by post-mortem degradation of haemoglobin and myoglobin. The iron bound to haem chromophores in these molecules exists in the reduced (ferrous, Fe2C) state, but after protein degradation, the haem is oxidized to the ferric (Fe3C) state (Francis et al. 1997). The electrons liberated by oxidation react with molecular oxygen to produce reactive oxygen species and highly reactive free radicals. The oxygen radicals or iron–oxygen complexes contribute directly to the formation of cross-links between cell membrane lipids, making them inert to other degradative reactions. This chain reaction may not only explain the persistence of osteocyte cell membranes over time, but also blood vessels which, in living organisms, consist of endothelial cells with fatty acid-rich membranes are bound to one another by tight junctions.... These free-radical induced cross-links would provide great resistance to further degradation and allow original components to act as templates for rapid, authigenic mineralization, effectively removing organic molecules from solution and preventing further degradation.... Mineralization occurs through early infiltration and permeation of labile tissues by mineralcharged water (Schopf 1975; Allison 1988; Briggs 2003) and differs from petrification, which is a replacement process (Briggs 2003). Mineralization has been invoked to explain preservation of three-dimensional remains of non-biomineralizing organisms dating to the Neoproterozoic (Hubert et al. 2005), Cretaceous muscle fibres (Martill 1990, 1994) and other soft tissue remains. The degree of soft tissue preservation is dependent upon mineral deposition outpacing the rate of decay of the tissues (Allison 1988) ... Upon removal of this re-deposited mineral phase, soft tissues and cells are released, still retaining morphological and functional aspects of the original materials" (p. 193-194).

  On caution in regarding microstructures as surviving blood cells and vessels:

  "The possibility remains that despite morphological and functional similarity of fossil cell and tissue components to extant material, no original molecular components may remain (Towe 1980). The structures may be the result of an as yet unidentified abiotic or geomicrobiological process that could explain their presence in thousand- to million-year-old fossil remains .... For example, the small round red intravascular microstructures may be a geological derivative, such as pyrite framboids... However, to demonstrate conclusively that these objects are related to the original blood components would require positive identification of haem compounds isolated from these microstructures. Definitive experiments are planned for the near future. Until such results are obtained, however, a geological explanation for the presence of these intravascular microstructures has not been eliminated.... Alternative sources for the vessels are also considered, such as kerogen-derived components, remnants of mineralized microbial biofilms, extant fungal hyphae or even induced contamination from collection procedures.... It is more difficult to propose an alternative origin for the fibrous and flexible demineralized matrix, or osteocytes with flexible filipodia and intracellular contents, but it may be that these materials are remnants of original proteinaceous material, highly altered by beta oxidation of original proteins to form long-chain hydrocarbon polymers that replace organic components or a similar condensation reaction" (p. 191, 194).

  From "Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present," Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2007, pp. 183-197.
• 

  Perry

  I certainly do apologize [for hurting your feelings] because that was not my intent. But I do not believe I was wrong to say that your statement was misleading

  What you believe is irrelevant.

  My Original Statement:

  flesh and blood encased in mineralized portions [of bone].

  Your contradictory admission:

  Nor did the tissue come out of the ground looking like that.

  Tissue and flesh is the same right? I mean for the common folks since as you admit, you are no scientist. This collagen stuff is just one part of many other substances which would be collectively described by the common person as "flesh". Not coming "out of the ground like that" implies a fundamental, substantial, even magical change between the ground and the lab. It was simply freed not changed thus falsifying your implication.

  Your other contradictory statement:

  Neither was there any blood.

  Heme and the portions of hemoglobin are components of "blood" just exactly as collagen is a fragment or component of "flesh". You have no problem discribing the confirmed flesh portions as "tissue", but then you try the opposite tack and attempt to minimize the confirmed heme and hemoglobin fragments as if that somehow bolsters your impetuous declaration of no "blood". Your argument might actually grow some legs and start walking if you could demonstrate that heme and hemoglobin fragments are also found in say rocks or dust, mud etc. But, of course you can't. It is indicative of animal blood and a component thereof.

  My personal feelings are as irrelevant as your erroneous beliefs about yourself. You tried to put one over on us and bully me by saying my statement was a distortion. My reference to plopping something on the grill was an obvious hyperbole proven by the fact that I wrote "encased in bone". No one actually grills internal fragments of bone. You know this, but ignore the obvious and seek to intimidate anyway.

  

  Yet, that is exactly what it looks like..... something fit for a grill, just not my grill.

  Your extreme bias toward your worldview distorts your thinking preventing you from using common sense and kindness. How many other views have you presented and researched and then made them to fit your worldview?.... God only knows.

  As for your references to dating.... I advise anyone reading this to simply Google "dating dinosaur bones" and make up your own mind. For every example of Leoloia's many million years results, their appears to be just as many dinosaur bone tests indicating thousands of years, many of the examples blind tests. Yet, Leolia would have us believe that the smell of roting flesh is supposed to last longer than the eons needed for continents to reform and for vast mountain ranges to rise and fall. I'm no scientist but my nose works well. What I'm smelling seems more from a bovine source rather than dinosaur tissue.

  If evolutionary scientists can't even be trusted to interpret the smell of roting flesh what else can they not be trusted with? I think that we all have ample experiential evidence (from our JW background) illustrating how perfectly normal folks can be led to believe and act on utterly inane things simply because of "group think".

  But, one thing is for sure; if Leolia and I ever meet at a pastafest, I don't want to hear a damn thing if I kick off my shoes!
• 

  Arthur

  Perry:

  I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but why must we or anyone else insist upon a literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis? Not even Jehovah's Witnesses insist that dinosaurs died only a few thousand years ago. Why can't we concede that the timlines in Genesis could possibly be figurative?

  I would argue that the evidence that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago far outweighs the evidence that they died thousands of years ago. One of the methods of dating fossils is by identifying the geological strata that they were located in. Geological strata can be just as accurate as tree rings in certain instances. Various layers with their unique deposits can be matched up with layers from that same time period thousands of miles away (this has been verified by ancient volcanic ash spread out over thousands of miles; yet found in the same geological layer). I know that some fossils have been deposited in strata that was burried under layers that they were able to identify as millions of years old.

  However, if one was to argue that the global flood of Genesis somehow created this geological phenomenon whereby bones were fossilized under drastic condtions, then that is a completely different discussion. From what I gather in this thread, you believe the flood account of Genesis was an actual historical event. I personally, do not. (A discussion of the Genesis flood account might be more appropriate under a different thread). However, I respect that this is your thread; and you can certainly do with it what you want.

  From what I have observed, there seems to be a deeply ingrained misconception in many people about the scientific process, and how conclusions are reached in the scientific community. I have noticed that JWs and other fundamentalists seem to believe that anyone working in the field of archeology or paleontology has a pre-established bias against the Bible that constantly influences the way they date fossils. Many fundamentalists seem to believe that scientists just arbitrarily reach conclusions based upon a conscious effort to contradict the Bible. If this were so, they would have been corrected in revised research - much in the same way that newer archeological discoveries proved certain OT accounts to be accurate. When it comes to dating fossils, there are actually many methods that are used in tandem; not just one single method. Several methods are used to come to a more accurate dating of the fossil instead of one arbitrarily chosen by the researcher.

  What many seem to overlook is the extreme competative nature of the scientific community. "Half-assing" one's research just won't cut it. There are too many of their peers who would only be too willing to point out their slopiness and lack of integrity. All significant findings are carefully catalogued and chronicled in peer-reviewed journals where others in the field go over their findings with a fine-tooth comb. These scientists are constantly competing for grants, and if one of them is discovered to be lying or cheating on their research, their career is essentially over.

  I find it strange that so many fundamentalists seem to think that there is a massive conspiracy among archeologists to "prove the Bible wrong". This just isn't the case. They are more interested in proving their counterparts wrong by pointing out the flaws in their research methods. I am sure that if the evidence clearly showed that dinosaurs died thousands of years ago, rather than millions, there would have been a paradigm shift where the evidence would begin to be published. This just hasn't been the case.

  The point is, a scientist just doesn't have the luxury to allow personal preferences and biases to influence thier published research. Those that do so, are eventually embarrassed by those in their field who have reviewed their work and have found it wanting. There are plenty of people in their field who would be more than happy to knock them off of their pedestal. In short, the scientific process a self-correcting process.
• 

  Perry

  The point is, a scientist just doesn't have the luxury to allow personal preferences and biases to influence thier published research. Those that do so, are eventually embarrassed by those in their field who have reviewed their work and have found it wanting. There are plenty of people in their field who would be more than happy to knock them off of their pedestal. In short, the scientific process a self-correcting process.

  Aurthur,

  How can you possibly live in this century of information and not know that leading scientists are firmly imbedded in Universities by something called "tenure". That means that they cannot be fired for writing anything stupid at all. Unlike the real world that you and I live in, they can be as ignorant as they want to and still get paid, especially if the money brokers are of a certain worldview...which they are. Many not only have the luxury, they have no shame whatsoever and have no impetus to self correct. In other words, mostly the opposite of what you claim is true.

  Let's look at the current reigning tenured proponent of old earth evolution (OEE) Richard Dawkins, tenured Oxford professor.

  Richard Dawkins

  ....creationists are so keen on the fake human footprints, which were carved during the depression to fool tourist, in the dinosaur beds of Texas," (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.225)

  Apparently he's just blind regardless of the watchmaking.

  Apparently only two footprints were originally visible in "millions" year old rock. They had to dig up a lot of rock to find more. Which they did, and still do.The site has hundreds of dinosaur and human footprints together, excavated as late as 1999.

  

  Check it all out here: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

  This site is only 2 1/2 hours from my house in San Antonio. If anyone is interested, I can make plans to meet you there and make a 'pastafest out of it.
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  Your extreme bias toward your worldview distorts your thinking preventing you from using common sense and kindness. How many other views have you presented and researched and then made them to fit your worldview?.... God only knows.

  Riiiiight, and so you're worldview isn't distorting your thinking in this case?

  Personally I started out believing in the flood and then changed my mind because the evidence didn't support my worldview. So obviously I'm not afraid to change my opinion.

  But what about you? I'm pretty sure you've believed in the flood for years, despite all the astronomical evidence against it. How many other views have YOU presented and researched and then made them fit your worldview?... Molech only knows.

  How dare you accuse us of being biased, when we are the only ones who are willing to change our minds?

  Lore
• 

  Arthur

  How can you possibly live in this century of information and not know that leading scientists are firmly imbedded in Universities by something called "tenure". That means that they cannot be fired for writing anything stupid at all. Unlike the real world that you and I live in, they can be as ignorant as they want to and still get paid, especially if the money brokers are of a certain worldview...which they are. Many not only have the luxury, they have no shame whatsoever and have no impetus to self correct. In other words, mostly the opposite of what you claim is true.

  Well, Perry, I am aware of tenure and I certainly agree with you that this is the situation in many of the universities; but that is not what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about authors like Dawkins either; who I totally disagree with. I was talking about researchers (geologists, archeologists, paleontologists) who are actively working in the field, and directly involved in the archeological finds and dating processes.

  I will only state that I am of the view that we do not have to limit ourselves to interpreting the timelines of the book of Genesis as literal. On this point, I will concede that we respectfully disagree.
• 

  Kaput

  This site is only 2 1/2 hours from my house in San Antonio. If anyone is interested, I can make plans to meet you there and make a 'pastafest out of it.

  Are you running low on carbs? If you change it to a "steakfest" I'd be interested!