Talk:Scientists discover soft tissue in dinosaur bones
Dinosaur fossil with soft tissueEdit
I'm curious as to how they figured out the age of the bone that was found. Was carbon dating used? Some conservative Christian groups are using this as "proof" that the world is very young (less that 10,000 yrs old), and that dinosaurs existed along-side man. I don't like the way they are thinking, but how does one explain soft tissue surviving 65 million years? I don't even know of soft tissue surviving in human/animal remains from just a few hundred years ago. It would be valuable to include the answers to these things in the article, in order to clear up any confusion.
- A bone is generally dated by multiple different methods; one would never rely on only a single methodology, but would prefer several or many alternative methods each with the same or very similar result.
- Soft tissue survival has been postulated for a very long time. There are many observable circumstances in which it can occur, so paleontologists have been specifically looking for situations where it may have occurred in the past. The characterstic they are looking for is a death followed by encasement in a gas and water impermeable structure. This can happen in certain forms of tar, some volcanic situations, and with some postulated sea events - as well as other theoretical events.
- The idea is that the tissue will only have the elements and biological constituents present at the time of death, and these will not be leached away over time by water. They will react in isolation, probably destroying any biological data (like dna), but they may still show some of the physical structures of the original creature. Think of a refrigerator which was unplugged and unopened for 65 million years. - Amgine | talk en.WN 17:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, despite what evolutionists will have you believe, the reason it is still preserved, is probably because it is far less then 65-70 million years old. Logically thinking, and in accordance with Occam's Razor, real "scientists" without a presupposition toward any particular worldview or dogmatic following of evolutionary timetables, would come to the conclusion that the bones are nowhere near that old, and are much younger, possibly no older then 5-10 thousand years old. Unfortunately, evidence is not nearly enough when it comes to changing one's beliefs on the science of origins, as this discovery will no doubt have no affect on evolutionists' set timetable of events as it were.
My point is clearly outlined by the first response above: "Some conservative Christian groups are using this as "proof" that the world is very young (less that 10,000 yrs old), and that dinosaurs existed along-side man. I don't like the way they are thinking, but how does one explain soft tissue surviving 65 million years?"(emphasis added) So in essence, how can scientists now manipulate this newfound evidence to coincide with millions of years instead of taking the evidence at face value for what it is: proof for a much younger earth then evolutionists have hypothesized? I'm sure they are working on that at this very moment.
It's the same story with the whole of evolution: despite the extreme complexity of design in nature(whether we admit it or not), and despite clear evidence on the side of creationism, such as the law of biogenesis, the anthropic principle, helium content in the atmosphere, the red-shift paradigm(contradicts the big bang), retrograde rotation of planets, magnetic field decay of the earth, salt content of the sea, carbon datings(half-life of 14C is just under 6000 years), existence of comets in the solar system, the ‘winding-up’ dilemma (nature of the galaxy), tight folding of geological strata(could not happen over millions of years), lack of mud on the sea floor, such recent recording of history(evolutionists say stone age man has been around for 100,000 years, and yet written history only dates back 4-5 thousand years), and dinosaur bones with soft tissue(more then one discovery has been made on this account), evolutionists still will not concede to anything less then their dogmatic, logically- flawed system of darwinism(an infinite amount of coincidences, and lack of any empirical evidence).
I'm convinced, if God Himself appeared before each and every evolutionist on the planet, they would hold a meeting and try to figure out how they could explain it away as a cognitive distortion caused by an evolution of the human psyche or something. How much more evidence do you need for a young earth then what you have seen with your own eyes? Here's a fine example of how evolutionists interpret the evidence: If our satellites picked up a random transmission from space that translated into a series of dashes and dots via morse code, reading "we are your friends," but had no idea where it came from, would scientists assume it had no intelligence behind it because the creator was not to be seen? Would they assume it must have coalesced from random radio waves travelling through the solar system over millions of years? Would they assume that because the transmission source could not be found that science disproves an intelligent reasoning behind it? Hint: They probably would if they were evolutionists.