Thatís why it is unbelievable that a creationist can claim, in 2011, that heís never heard of her before. Creationists have continually been distorting her research for years.
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.
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).
Did you mean that youíve never heard of her before you read that article?.
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':
Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.
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.
I 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.
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
I found it interesting also, but is a few million years much when we are talking about something that is 4 billion years old? It is a new technique also, maybe there may be problems with it.
The article never says how much the dating difference was, is there an acceptable amount of error in something 4 billion years old, and if so would a few million years fall within that accepted amount of error? All it says is millions of years difference, which could mean a few or 10, 100, 500???...
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.
The matter at hand is that evolutionists discard evidence that is uncomfortable. A dino was most certainly found with tissue and bones in tact.
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.
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?
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.
Mazzy, inre Pressie:
I think you are rude and your horns are showing.
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.