toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?

[The Barbarian]

If you claim that the earth was not created in 6 literal days time (approximately 144 hours) then it is incumbent on you to show us your evidence that is not based on "I don't believe it, so it can't be so".

You want to see it again? Sure. As the ancient Christians wrote, it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. And since the timing and sequence are different for the two creation stories in Genesis, we have to conclude that either Genesis is self-contradictory, or the account is not a literal history.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You want to see it again? Sure. As the ancient Christians wrote, it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

So, your evidence is, "I don't believe it, so it can't be so".
:chew:

And since the timing and sequence are different for the two creation stories in Genesis

I only know of the one creation story, please give chapter and verses for the two creation stories.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You want to see it again? Sure. As the ancient Christians wrote, it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

So, your evidence is, "I don't believe it, so it can't be so".

Nope. Just pointing out the logical absurdity.

Barbarian observes:
And since the timing and sequence are different for the two creation stories in Genesis, we have to conclude that either Genesis is self-contradictory, or the account is not a literal history.

I only know of the one creation story, please give chapter and verses for the two creation stories.

You should read the Bible. Lots of good stuff therein.

The creation narrative is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the two first chapters of the Book of Genesis.

While Genesis 2–3 is a simple linear narrative proceeding from God's forming the first man through the Garden of Eden to the creation of the first woman and the institution of marriage, Genesis 1 is notable for its elaborate internal structure. It consists of eight acts of creation over six days, framed by an introduction and a conclusion. In each of the first three days there is an act of division: day one divides the darkness from light, day two the "waters above" from the "waters below", and day three the sea from the land. In each of the next three days these divisions are populated: day four populates the darkness and light with sun, moon and stars; day five populates seas and skies with fish and birds; and finally animals and mankind are placed on the land. On day zero primeval chaos reigns, and on day seven there is cosmic order.[14]

There are significant parallels between the two stories, but also significant differences: in the first narrative the humans (male and female together) are created after the animals, while in the second the man is created first (and alone), then the animals, and finally the woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

Christians have always known this.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You should read the Bible. Lots of good stuff therein.

There are significant parallels between the two stories, but also significant differences: in the first narrative the humans (male and female together) are created after the animals, while in the second the man is created first (and alone), then the animals, and finally the woman[/COLOR].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

You have proven you can read wikipedia, but you have also proven that you can't read the Bible.

Since all your "evidence" for not believing the Biblical account of creation consists of "I don't believe it, so it can't be so", you are full of hot air.

 

[Zetetic]

You have proven you can read wikipedia, but you have also proven that you can't read the Bible.

Since all your "evidence" for not believing the Biblical account of creation consists of "I don't believe it, so it can't be so", you are full of hot air.

G, you are repeating yourself and it is hurting your position - making your argument appear to be the one with all the hot air. Also, you don't get to be ignorant of the parallel creation accounts and then accuse your opponent of not reading his Bible. Saying such a thing will make people assume you are a hypocrite, which may be a mischaracterization.

If you want to spend your time here fruitfully, truly engage in the conversation and leave your trolling repetitions for those who derive pleasure from thinking about how the world is full of idiots. It frustrates me to see a conversation falter because one person has refused to be civil and to really listen and respond.

I believe wisdom can come from even the most unlikely of people and so we should react carefully, no matter how right we think we are. Remember that our God uses the foolish things to shame the wise. My point is to tone down your approach and to be have humility and grace even in a debate.

 

[ThermalCry]

Cant wait to see what they can find based on this discovery. I wonder what the conditions were that kept the soft tissue intact.

 

[genuineoriginal]

G, you are repeating yourself and it is hurting your position - making your argument appear to be the one with all the hot air. Also, you don't get to be ignorant of the parallel creation accounts and then accuse your opponent of not reading his Bible. Saying such a thing will make people assume you are a hypocrite, which may be a mischaracterization.

If you want to spend your time here fruitfully, truly engage in the conversation and leave your trolling repetitions for those who derive pleasure from thinking about how the world is full of idiots. It frustrates me to see a conversation falter because one person has refused to be civil and to really listen and respond.

I believe wisdom can come from even the most unlikely of people and so we should react carefully, no matter how right we think we are. Remember that our God uses the foolish things to shame the wise. My point is to tone down your approach and to be have humility and grace even in a debate.

I appreciate your attempt to help the conversation, and I too hate to see a conversation falter because someone like The Barbarian refuses to be civil and really listen.

The problem is not that creationists refuse to believe that a T. Rex can be 70 million years old and have soft tissue. It is the irrational dogma of the evolutionists that cannot accept any theory that would shorten that time to a few thousand years. For them, finding the soft tissue invalidates every theory they have for how fossils are formed.

The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.
(source)​

 

[ThermalCry]

You have proven you can read wikipedia, but you have also proven that you can't read the Bible.

Since all your "evidence" for not believing the Biblical account of creation consists of "I don't believe it, so it can't be so", you are full of hot air.

What is wrong with you? He said it is absurd to say 'morning' and 'night' without the sun ... and it is. Because morning and night are states contingent upon the sun. Or was Earth orbiting some other bright object that the bible fails to mention?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Cant wait to see what they can find based on this discovery. I wonder what the conditions were that kept the soft tissue intact.

Being buried in rock for 4000 years would explain it very nicely.
:chuckle:

 

[ThermalCry]

For them, finding the soft tissue invalidates every theory they have for how fossils are formed.

No, it doesnt. It means there is yet another mystery to be solved. Im guessing some sort of mineral rich clay combined with a myriad of incredibly rare conditions happening at the same time to produce amazing finds like these.

But hey, 'goddunnit with a flood!' is a pretty good 'explanation' also.

 

[ThermalCry]

Being buried in rock for 4000 years would explain it very nicely.
:chuckle:

then why dont we find soft tissue in every one we dig up?

 

[genuineoriginal]

What is wrong with you? He said it is absurd to say 'morning' and 'night' without the sun ... and it is. Because morning and night are states contingent upon the sun. Or was Earth orbiting some other bright object that the bible fails to mention?

The Bible does not fail to mention the bright object.

Genesis 1:3-5,14-19 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. ... 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.​

You appear to be having problems understanding the concept that there can be light without a sun. I don't have that problem.
Science has proven that photons have strange properties that make them behave like particles and like waves. This is because photons are the first material thing that God created and the later things He created are refinements that have properties that are easier for us to classify as energy or matter.

It is not hard to believe that the God that created the heaven and the earth and everything in them is also able to create light without a sun. In fact, that would something everyone should expect God to be able to do.

Revelation 21:23 23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

then why dont we find soft tissue in every one we dig up?

From the same article I quoted from earlier:

"And so we had to take the fossil apart."

"You don't see that in most excavations, because every effort is made to keep the fossil intact," said Horner, a co-author of the study.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

But hey, 'goddunnit with a flood!' is a pretty good 'explanation' also.

Well, it does fit the evidence better.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

then why dont we find soft tissue in every one we dig up?

Soft tissue within an old bone. Thousands of old bones out there and we look for the recent hand of God in such works as do tell, ruddy remnants fit for a handkerchief that have washed to our modern shore

Every scientist, paleontologist, geologist, and science teacher may now raise their eraser in their right hand, and deface from that chalk board the crude numerology they have been stirring up there, all because of this fulfillment.

Strange to me though, that such a puzzle must be. That the universe and everything in it shall appear so puzzlingly old and complicated, that interspersed within it we must dig and scratch deep down into the earth to find the writing on the wall.

Why don't we find soft tissue in every one we dig up?
(to be read sort of poetically)

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:You want to see it again? Sure. As the ancient Christians wrote, it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.Nope. Just pointing out the logical absurdity.

Barb loves this nonsense. Unfortunately for him the bible introduces mornings and evenings before there was a sun. But somehow it is wrong to suggest this might be accurate.

Barbarian observes:And since the timing and sequence are different for the two creation stories in Genesis, we have to conclude that either Genesis is self-contradictory, or the account is not a literal history. You should read the Bible. Lots of good stuff therein.
[COLOR="Indigo"]The creation narrative is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the two first chapters of the Book of Genesis. While Genesis 2–3 is a simple linear narrative proceeding from God's forming the first man through the Garden of Eden to the creation of the first woman and the institution of marriage, Genesis 1 is notable for its elaborate internal structure. It consists of eight acts of creation over six days, framed by an introduction and a conclusion. In each of the first three days there is an act of division: day one divides the darkness from light, day two the "waters above" from the "waters below", and day three the sea from the land. In each of the next three days these divisions are populated: day four populates the darkness and light with sun, moon and stars; day five populates seas and skies with fish and birds; and finally animals and mankind are placed on the land. On day zero primeval chaos reigns, and on day seven there is cosmic order.[14]There are significant parallels between the two stories, but also significant differences: in the first narrative the humans (male and female together) are created after the animals, while in the second the man is created first (and alone), then the animals, and finally the woman[/COLOR].
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative[/url]Christians have always known this.

This sort of non-sequitur is always brought up. Never heard a decent explanation of why it is relevant though. How does the structure of a piece of writing mean the writing cannot be historical?

The problem is not that creationists refuse to believe that a T. Rex can be 70 million years old and have soft tissue. It is the irrational dogma of the evolutionists that cannot accept any theory that would shorten that time to a few thousand years. For them, finding the soft tissue invalidates every theory they have for how fossils are formed.

It does seem rather strange. Discovering that dinos were around a few thousand years ago is no death knell to evolution. Nor is it evidence that all of them were. One wonders why they are so resistant to the idea. :idunno:

There are very few ideas that evolution cannot adapt to. :chuckle:

What is wrong with you? He said it is absurd to say 'morning' and 'night' without the sun ... and it is. Because morning and night are states contingent upon the sun. Or was Earth orbiting some other bright object that the bible fails to mention?

Like the non-sun light that the bible mentions, perhaps? :idunno:

then why dont we find soft tissue in every one we dig up?

Because biological material decays rather easily and quickly. :duh:

The question is - why do we find any?

 

[tudorturtl]

True to the human propensity for irrationality, those who don't believe in science will use this scientific discovery to disclaim the voracity of science so as to promote their non-scientific view of reality.

Those who respect science will simply wait to see what can be learned from this surprising new bit of information.

funny, you speak as though science is a religion. science is a tool, a method of gathering information. believing in a hammer does not build a house. All of us have what we believe from all of the information we have gathered,whether it be from books or from the testimony of others,and from deductions that we ourselves have made and we use what tools we have.
It would be quite foolish to think that a scientist should not have an agenda, everyone has an agenda. It is what drives science to seek and to find. As A christian, I have no problem with science or scientific method because the fact that there is science demonstrates that there IS truth that is eternal, that we can rely on.
what I have a problem with are people who think they have a monopoly on the direction that science should look(what is being built) religious battles should be left outside the realm of science because we christians know that science will never prove or disprove the existence of God for that itself would undermine the entire purpose of "grace through faith". yet it is the atheistic approach to science and it's attempts to disprove God that draw christians to the battle because of the potential for "souls" to be lost.
Conscience will not allow us to rest!

 

[fool]

It does seem rather strange. Discovering that dinos were around a few thousand years ago is no death knell to evolution. Nor is it evidence that all of them were. One wonders why they are so resistant to the idea. :idunno:

Exactly

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You want to see it again? Sure. As the ancient Christians wrote, it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.Nope. Just pointing out the logical absurdity.

Barb loves this nonsense.

(Stipe considers Christian theology to be "nonsense.")

Unfortunately for him the bible introduces mornings and evenings before there was a sun.

In one of the two accounts in Genesis. The logical contradiction only exists for modern Christians who try to revise it to make it a literal history. The early Christians saw it as figurative.

But somehow it is wrong to suggest this might be accurate.

Barbarian observes:
And since the timing and sequence are different for the two creation stories in Genesis, we have to conclude that either Genesis is self-contradictory, or the account is not a literal history. You should read the Bible. Lots of good stuff therein.

The creation narrative is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the two first chapters of the Book of Genesis. While Genesis 2–3 is a simple linear narrative proceeding from God's forming the first man through the Garden of Eden to the creation of the first woman and the institution of marriage, Genesis 1 is notable for its elaborate internal structure. It consists of eight acts of creation over six days, framed by an introduction and a conclusion. In each of the first three days there is an act of division: day one divides the darkness from light, day two the "waters above" from the "waters below", and day three the sea from the land. In each of the next three days these divisions are populated: day four populates the darkness and light with sun, moon and stars; day five populates seas and skies with fish and birds; and finally animals and mankind are placed on the land. On day zero primeval chaos reigns, and on day seven there is cosmic order.[14]There are significant parallels between the two stories, but also significant differences: in the first narrative the humans (male and female together) are created after the animals, while in the second the man is created first (and alone), then the animals, and finally the woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrativeChristians have always known this.

This sort of non-sequitur is always brought up. Never heard a decent explanation of why it is relevant though. How does the structure of a piece of writing mean the writing cannot be historical?

(Stipe considers accepting Genesis as it is, to be a "non-sequitur")

G.O. writes:
The problem is not that creationists refuse to believe that a T. Rex can be 70 million years old and have soft tissue. It is the irrational dogma of the evolutionists that cannot accept any theory that would shorten that time to a few thousand years.[/quote]

Comes down to evidence. Find something that supports your ideas.

For them, finding the soft tissue invalidates every theory they have for how fossils are formed.

If you really think so, you don't know anything about paleontology. Such material (which isn't yet shown to be tissue) has been long known from invertebrate fossils, for example.

It does seem rather strange. Discovering that dinos were around a few thousand years ago is no death knell to evolution.

Some are still around. They are called "birds."

Nor is it evidence that all of them were. One wonders why they are so resistant to the idea.

It's that "E" word you guys hate so much.

There are very few ideas that evolution cannot adapt to.

There's a very long list. But I suppose anything seems completely adaptable, if you don't know much about it.

then why dont we find soft tissue in every one we dig up?
Because biological material decays rather easily and quickly.

The question is - why do we find any?

Because it's rare for anything to fossilize and exceedingly rare for complex organic material to survive that long.

But I notice no one yet can come up with any evidence showing that it can't.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It does seem rather strange. Discovering that dinos were around a few thousand years ago is no death knell to evolution. Nor is it evidence that all of them were. One wonders why they are so resistant to the idea. :idunno:

Because then they have to admit that YEC is at least a possibility that they cannot deny.