T-Rex Dinosaur is Found Un-Fossilized

by Perry 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  damselfly

  It's amazing what science can do, isn't it?

  Dams
• 

  Cygnus

  She added that if the creature inside the frog grows to be too large for the frog's womb, they have researchers on hand to remove the embryo and continue it's gestation outside the frog, similar to techniques performed at Duke University's School of Medicine.

  yeah yeah, I'm pedantic, but that error bothers the heck out of me
• 

  TD

  Hey Perry,

  Seems untrue due to the fact that anti-bodies were detected in mice in response to the T-Rex hemeglobin that was injected into them. If the heme were replaced with other material, there would have been no antibody response.

  Is there a source for this? At any rate, that's encouraging, because it is strongly suggestive of intact proteins.
• 

  peacefulpete

  
  
  
  
  

  Here's an article about the facts and how Creationists are deliberately exploiting and distorting the sensationalized media coverage.

  Dino Blood and the Young Earth

  Here's one from a Christian site refuting the YEC claims:

  Reasons To Believe: Dinosaur Blood
• 

  Perry

  http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i8f.htm
  
  
  

  The infamous T-rex samples are fossilized. Period.

  Yes, we know that you have repeated this mantra several times. Perhaps we should start with a definition of "fossilized". A definition that seems applicable to this situation is the complete replacement of the original material with foreign minerals. The findings I have presented here are by "Old Earth Evolutionists" (OEE) scientists who agree that much material has been recovered that was not replaced by mineralization. According to my understanding, when the material underwent processes to demineralize the substances, unminerialized areas or pockets were freed from the surrounding mineralized portions.

  The wonderful part of the find is that the microfeatures of the tissues were preserved due to an unusual bit of lucky chemical introduction and slow degradation.

  Can you explain to us more about this "lucky chemical introduction"? How does it work? What chemicals were introduced? Also, can you repeat in a laboratory this "slow degradiation"? How does normal degradiation work? How fast does DNA degrade?

  After the samples spent weeks an acid bath to dissolve the harder minerals what was left was microscopic fragments of fossilized blood vessels and tissues.

  So let me get this straight. Once the fossil was demineralized, the fossilized blood vessels and tissues were left? So, If a person said that the old blood vessels and tissues were left they would be wrong, but if they said that the old fossilized stretchy soft blood vessels and tissues were left, that would be correct? Isn't this the same mental masturbation that is used to convey a particular world view by the selective use of the terms "people" and "worldly people". Are not those terms only useful by those who deceptively manipulate people's minds?

  Also, why do you use the term "microscopic" in your above comment? Is it to minimize the discovery or attempt to make it appear inconsequential? As if people shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such "microscopic" things. The center picture with the dried blood on the bone at the top of this thread certainly isn't microscopic. It appears exactly like the "old fossilized stretchy soft blood vessels and tissues" that I threw on my grill last Sunday. The OEE scientist leading the research agrees:

  ``The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone,'' they reported in a paper being published Friday in the journal Science.
  
  Branching vessels found in bone matrix of T. rex (left) and ostrich. Credit: NC State

  These are not flesh. They are also fossil remnants. There have been other examples of fossil tissue that gives a similar sem-ridgid appearance.

  PP, I know that you were an elder at one time. And, as such I'm sure you became very adept with the selective use of approved words and thoughts. Perhaps you even counselled people from associating with "worldly" people. For sure, people trembled before you as you sat in judgement over their dispicable teenage sexual expressions with the power of their families rejection held in your hand.... such power. But you're in the real world now. Stop reading the approved responses to various discoveries listed on the OEE site, talk.origins.

  I realize that I do think unapproved thoughts and yes I have visited unapproved web-sites that do not subscribe to the OEE worldview. I just like to keep my options open. Call it an allergic reaction to "childhood indoctrination into deception" otherwise known as born in the truth.

  Mind you actual protein traces have been recovered from fossilized dinosaur eggs and bone.

  So when the bones were "fossilzed" tm or minerialized and then the minerials were removed by the weak acid baths, how did the complex proteins know how to reconstitute themselves? Are the reconstituted proteins fossilized? If the fossilized proteins still elicit antibody reactions when injected into mice, are the "fossilized" tm proteins any different than "unfossilized" proteins" . How are they different. How would you be able to distinguish between the two?

  Here's an article about the facts and how Creationists are deliberately exploiting and distorting the sensationalized media coverage.

  Yes, that's it. It's those wicked, filthy Creationists who exploit and distort! The evil slave who beats his brothers! The bloodthristy whore who manipulates the kings of the earth!

  PP, you make one hell of an Elder. There will be plenty of time for you to destroy your religious opponents later. This thread does not contain one comment (to my knowledge) from at Creationist. All of the research and discoveries are by Old Earth Evolutionists.

  Please take your time and answer my questions.
• 

  Perry

  While PP is retreiving this timely information, consider: