Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

dinosaur bones found not fossilised ?why?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1    CASEY yyyy

CASEY yyyy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2006

Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:36 AM

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..


#2    Annointer

Annointer

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2006

Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:39 AM

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?


#3    CASEY yyyy

CASEY yyyy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2006

Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:44 AM

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


#4    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:56 AM

Sorry, but all dinosaur bones ever found were fossilized thumbsup.gif

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#5    Annointer

Annointer

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2006

Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:57 AM

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


#6    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,664 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2006 - 02:07 AM

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.


#7    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 12 November 2006 - 02:28 AM

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

IPB Image\

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#8    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,936 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 12 November 2006 - 03:50 AM

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.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#9    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,936 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:00 AM

Quote


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

IPB Image\


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.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#10    RachelM

RachelM

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Female

  • I run with scissors.

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:11 AM

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.

Posted Image

#11    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,664 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:17 AM

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.


#12    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,936 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:19 AM

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.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#13    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,664 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:24 AM

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.


#14    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,936 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:29 AM

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.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#15    CASEY yyyy

CASEY yyyy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2006

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:32 AM

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users