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

#16    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:34 AM

Iams.. he's making perfect assumptions about you.  It has been shown to you time and time again that the bone was fossilized that acides were needed to dissolve it... and that there was no DNA tissues.. I mean do I have to repeat him?

Quote

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.


NO BONE! FOSSILIZED!!  I don't know why this is a hard concept to grasp...

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#17    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:39 AM

Quote


Iams.. he's making perfect assumptions about you.  It has been shown to you time and time again that the bone was fossilized that acides were needed to dissolve it... and that there was no DNA tissues.. I mean do I have to repeat him?
NO BONE! FOSSILIZED!!  I don't know why this is a hard concept to grasp...


If it had been fossilized, they would have been UNABLE to extract soft tissue, since it would have been completely replaced by minerals.

"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

#18    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:43 AM

It wasn't soft tissue! It was just a few protine cells... that was only *MADE* soft when acids were applied.

That point has been shown over and over and you're purpously being dence and obtuse about it.

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#19    brave_new_world

brave_new_world

    Peasant love child

  • Member
  • 6,842 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Australia

  • My men like satyrs grazing on the lawns, shall with their goat-feet dance the antic hay. --Marlowe

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:39 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..



I got this information from a book called "Children of the Matrix" by brilliant researcher David Ikce:

Rock carvings dating back back more than 10,000years ago were found during an expedition to the Marcua Huasai plateau  northeast of Lima, Peru, and these included sculptures representing people and animals, most of which are not native to Peru. They included a polar bear, walrus, African lion, penguin and stegosaurus dinosaur. But dinosaurs were unknown to science until the 1880s, and the stegorsauria was not identified until 1901. Talk us through that one.

Posted Image
The man of science is a poor philosopher.
---Albert Einstein

<a href="http://funkyflea.deviantart.com" target="_blank">http://funkyflea.deviantart.com


#20    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:44 AM

If this is the set of rock carvings I think you're talking about... most were faked.

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#21    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2006 - 02:37 PM

Quote


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.


Has it occurred to you to read the reasons she gives for being reluctant to release her findings?  Perfectly valid, scientific reasons?  Let me guess, you never bothered to look at the source of the stories.  You would rather guess at why a person does something, rather than actually believe them when they tell you.


#22    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2006 - 02:46 PM

Quote


Rock carvings dating back back more than 10,000years ago were found during an expedition to the Marcua Huasai plateau  northeast of Lima, Peru, and these included sculptures representing people and animals, most of which are not native to Peru. They included a polar bear, walrus, African lion, penguin and stegosaurus dinosaur. But dinosaurs were unknown to science until the 1880s, and the stegorsauria was not identified until 1901. Talk us through that one.


Are you talking about the Ica stones?  It's pretty much an open secret in Peru that they are hoaxes made by the locals.  It was an easy way to make a few bucks, scratching some pics out of comic books onto rocks and selling it to the crazy white guy.  The funny part is that some of the rocks can actually be matched up to comic book versions of dinosaurs from the time of their discovery  that are no longer considered correct, such as tail-dragging or swamp-dwelling.


#23    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 12 November 2006 - 08:27 PM

Quote


Has it occurred to you to read the reasons she gives for being reluctant to release her findings?  Perfectly valid, scientific reasons?  Let me guess, you never bothered to look at the source of the stories.  You would rather guess at why a person does something, rather than actually believe them when they tell you.


I love the way you continue to make incorrect assumptions about what I have and haven't done.  I'm not sure why you continue to do this.  Maybe you're trying to paint me into the role of the unreasonable, religious zealot, which I am not.  I am a great fan of science, I am just skeptical of evolutionists and the "truth" they keep trying to foist on us.  So you may want to stop doing that.

I may not be a scientist, but I am an experienced leader, and as such one of my main functions--one of the abilities that make me most successful as a leader--is understanding people and why people do or do not do things.  One of the things you learn as a leader is that what people say "officially" is sometimes different from what they really want to say.  There have been quotes attributed to this particular scientist, which seem to be different from her quotes in the article you are referring to, and as far as I have been able to find so far, she has not refuted the quotes in the other articles.  So, maybe what we are seeing is the difference between "official" statements and "candid" ones.

"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

#24    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 12 November 2006 - 08:49 PM

Quote


It wasn't soft tissue! It was just a few protine cells... that was only *MADE* soft when acids were applied.

That point has been shown over and over and you're purpously being dence and obtuse about it.


No, SC, I am not trying to be dense, I am wondering how biological material (because that is what proteins are, right) can survive millions of years without decomposing.  Even freeze drying and vacuum sealing cannot preserve biological material indefinitely.

Additionally, this article seems to describe this tissue very differently from what others have posted:

Quote


When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible.

A scanning electron microscope revealed that the dinosaur blood vessels, which are 70 million years old, are virtually identical to those recovered from modern ostrich bones. The ostrich is today’s largest bird, and many paleontologists believe that birds are the living descendants of dinosaurs. Scientists may be able to confirm this evolutionary relationship if they can isolate certain proteins from the recently discovered T. rex tissue. These proteins could also help solve another puzzle: whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like other reptiles or warm-blooded like mammals.

This is quoted from an article published by the California Academy of Science which does not appear to be a lying, stinking, CREATIONIST *gasp* organization.

Quote


Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilized bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.


I'm pretty sure MSNBC and Reuters are not CREATIONIST organizations either.  And I believe Mary Higby is being quoted correcty here describing something that is not mineralized or fossilised at all.




"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

#25    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 - 09:36 PM

Quote

Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilized bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Have you ever thought that these too are fossilized. Blood vessels would of just been channels in the marrow of the bone thumbsup.gif Nothing still organic.

-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!


#26    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 12 November 2006 - 09:50 PM

Quote


Have you ever thought that these too are fossilized. Blood vessels would of just been channels in the marrow of the bone thumbsup.gif Nothing still organic.


Flexible, stretchy, transparent fossils?

"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

#27    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 12 November 2006 - 10:20 PM

Quote


Flexible, stretchy, transparent fossils?



hip bones are very good at perserving things.. if the conditions are correct.  They're still fossilized...

*shrugs*  Notice how we're not finding a few hundred a year, only the one? Conditions were faveratible to preserve such tissues to be fossilized the way they were.

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#28    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 12 November 2006 - 10:43 PM

Quote


hip bones are very good at perserving things.. if the conditions are correct.  They're still fossilized...

*shrugs*  Notice how we're not finding a few hundred a year, only the one? Conditions were faveratible to preserve such tissues to be fossilized the way they were.


Frankly, I'm amazed anything that has been in the ground for 65 MILLION years is still flexible and stretchy.

"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

#29    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 12 November 2006 - 11:01 PM

I'm not being sarcastic IamsSon, but I believe oil is organic, has been in the ground for millions of years and is definitely not fossilised.

I do remember this being brought up in another thread and there was reference to scientists beginning to question our understanding of the fossilisation process. Obviously if their is any misunderstanding of that we cannot rule out the fact that organic material inside a large bone like the upper leg may survive the fossilisation process.

This might sound convenient for the scientists, but I'd be inclined to follow a 'wait and see' attitude. This article from National Geographic explains there was no unfossilised bone, and the soft tissue was unmineralised and still flexible when the fossil was originally broken. It did not have to be acidified to 'recover' it's flexibility, the acid was only used to dissolve fossilised bone surrounding the soft tissue. The article also speculates that other fossil specimens may have similar internal feature, they simply haven't yet been examined for this yet (as it's been assumed to have been impossible).

I can't find much more recent info so I'm assuming they are still debating what to do vis-a-vis rewriting fossilisation theory.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#30    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 13 November 2006 - 12:34 AM

Quote


Frankly, I'm amazed anything that has been in the ground for 65 MILLION years is still flexible and stretchy.



Fine.. whatever.  "God" did it..

seems to be the only answer you'll ever take.  We're right back to the "If we can't explain it.. the gods. or a god.. did it" Which is sad to say the least.

It's obvious it can happen, because we have the evidence it does.  And it's assumingly *VERY* damned rare to have happen if this is the first and *ONLY* flexible tissue found.  And judgeing from the fossilized bone area... it's not that hard to see.. given how some fossilizations happen, the thickness of the bone, and the area it came from.

But.. believe whatever.. I just don't care anymore.

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users