46 replies to this topic

[CASEY yyyy]

some dinosaur bones have been found ''not'' fosslised?why is this?most say it takes 5 million years for bones to become fossilised'that could mean dinosaurs were around recentley?'i think thats very strange...unless sciantists are wrong aboult how long it takes for bones to turn into a fossil..

[Annointer]

Quote

some dinosaur bones have been found ''not'' fosslised?why is this?most say it takes 5 million years for bones to become fossilised'that could mean dinosaurs were around recentley?'i think thats very strange...unless sciantists are wrong aboult how long it takes for bones to turn into a fossil..

Where's your source?

[CASEY yyyy]

Quote

Where's your source?

just go on the internet and type in 'unfossilised bones found' its VERY rare to find tham and there isint much aboult it but thay have been found

[frogfish]

Sorry, but all dinosaur bones ever found were fossilized

[Annointer]

I'm not finding any photos on this that legitimize the claim. I would assume it's a mammoth or something similar.

[aquatus1]

I beleive he is referring to soft tissue that was found in a t-rex (I believe) pelvis that had to be cracked for shipment.  Many people mistake this report to mean that the bone was not fossilized (it was), and that the tissue was regular soft tissue like the kind we are currently wearing (it is not).  The soft tissue was only soft in the sense that it was not replaced by minerals, and it contained no genetic traces.  Imagine sealing up an apple in a waterproof and airproof safe for about a million years, and the waste is pretty much what you would find.  Same thing for the fossil tissue.

[frogfish]

Yep, same thing happens with petrified trees. What was once tissue is just replaced by minerals.

[IamsSon]

And of course, any source which says otherwise is quickly discounted, ridiculed, or dismissed because it is being presented by a "religious" organization and is obviously biased.  The thing is if the information is true, then why are there no non-"religious" publications making it known?

LINK1


LINK2

LINK3

LINK4

LINK5

Edited by IamsSon, 12 November 2006 - 03:53 AM.

[IamsSon]

Quote

Yep, same thing happens with petrified trees. What was once tissue is just replaced by minerals.

The interesting thing is, that dinosaur bones have been found which are not fossilized int he sense that minerals have replaced tissue.  If that had happened, then scientists could not have removed "soft tissue" from the bones.  These bones were still organic material after 65 million years!

We can't even preserve food for more than a couple of decades, but throw a little dirt over a decomposing body (and yes, it was decomposing or there would have been a whole body around this bone) just right and it will be preserved for millions of years.

[RachelM]

Quote

And of course, any source which says otherwise is quickly discounted, ridiculed, or dismissed because it is being presented by a "religious" organization and is obviously biased.  The thing is if the information is true, then why are there no non-"religious" publications making it known?

LINK1
LINK2

LINK3

LINK4

LINK5

Your links mention Mary Schweitzer.  You might find this interesting:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Source

In fact, you might want to read the whole article, which explains how she extracted the tissue.

[aquatus1]

Quote

The thing is if the information is true, then why are there no non-"religious" publications making it known?

Indeed.  Makes you wonder why only organizations that dabble in knowing "Truth", as opposed to ones that deal with facts, tend to push this information so readily.

In all cases, there are plenty of scientific sources that deal with the issue of soft tissue found in fossils.  Would finding any change your opinion?  You only seemed to link not just religious sites, but openly anti-evolution sites.

Quote

The interesting thing is, that dinosaur bones have been found which are not fossilized int he sense that minerals have replaced tissue. If that had happened, then scientists could not have removed "soft tissue" from the bones. These bones were still organic material after 65 million years!

You haven't read the original report, have you?  The only source you have looked for this story is the religious sites.

Here's the first (non-religious) source I got with a google search:

T-Rex Fossil Yields Soft Tissue

See if you can spot any exagerrations, assumptions, and outright disinformation between an unbiased version of the story and the accounts you linked.

[IamsSon]

Quote

Your links mention Mary Schweitzer.  You might find this interesting:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Source

In fact, you might want to read the whole article, which explains how she extracted the tissue.

I think someone else posted that article in another thread.  One of the links I posted has several quotes from her.  

But no matter what she had to do to get to the tissue, the tissue was still there; it had not fossilized.  It had not been replaced by minerals, the bone was still bone.

[aquatus1]

Quote

I think someone else posted that article in another thread.  One of the links I posted has several quotes from her.  

But no matter what she had to do to get to the tissue, the tissue was still there; it had not fossilized.  It had not been replaced by minerals, the bone was still bone.

For crying out loud, IamsSon, Seraphina explained it to you on another thread, RachelM gave you a link to an article here, and even I gave you a blurb that should have taken all of about a minute to read.  The least you could do is actually get your facts straight.  The bone was completly fossilized and had to be dissolved with acids.  The only tissue that was left was some cellular remains and some proteins.  There was no bone.

[IamsSon]

Quote

You haven't read the original report, have you?  The only source you have looked for this story is the religious sites.

Here's the first (non-religious) source I got with a google search:

T-Rex Fossil Yields Soft Tissue

See if you can spot any exagerrations, assumptions, and outright disinformation between an unbiased version of the story and the accounts you linked.

You need to stop making assumptions about me aquatus.  I did read the article linked by non-creationists sites.  But since my distrust of evolutionists is probably almost as big as yor disdain of creationists, I'm not sure how much to trust it.

Who knows,maybe the poor woman is fearing for her career, since she publicized a finding that could throw a huge wrench in the whole evolution scheme and the disinformation is in the so-called scientific, peer-reviewed (are any of these peers skeptics of evolution?  I doubt it), publications.  

How do I know they are unbiased? Because a bunch of "scientists" whose funding and careers depends on evolution being true "reviewed" the article?  Doesn't sound like grounds for unbiased review to me.

[CASEY yyyy]

Quote

some dinosaur bones have been found ''not'' fosslised?why is this?most say it takes 5 million years for bones to become fossilised'that could mean dinosaurs were around recentley?'i think thats very strange...unless sciantists are wrong aboult how long it takes for bones to turn into a fossil..

me again' unfossilised bones have been found in antartica'not sure if anymore have been found'i also herd aboult someone finding a dinosaur jaw bone not fossilised