Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
CASEY yyyy

dinosaur bones found not fossilised ?why?

47 posts in this topic

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but all dinosaur bones ever found were fossilized :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

IPB Image\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :tu: Nothing still organic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.