Odd, things is that the defining factor of avian and birds is that they have hollow bones not the tissues found in the bone.
To say that his once ?controversial? theory is now widely ?accepted? because of some features found on both dinosaurs and birds is not scientific; it is his ?Opinion?.
Science would still not have classified dinosaurs or T-Rex with birds in our current grouping system due to some major structure differences but we are doing so with evolution?
I need much more evidence to believe that a bird is a dinosaur then to believe you found blood that is 50 million years old.
Both speculations are laughable but both are being taught as proven fact with no more then a ?theory? and some one?s opinion. There is no proof and shows like this are proving otherwise. As we still conduct scientific testing we are being bombarded with information and facts that are disproving our evolutionary theories and leaving us with nothing more then ?young earth?.
Someone claimed there was millions of evidences and I can tell you, I have researched these evidences and they are all either disprove theories or they are hoaxes being still taught as fact. ?peppered moth?, ?Piltdown man?, ?Nebraska man?, and ?Neanderthal?. I can list more issues with evolution and old earth then can be given as proof of it.
If we are to be scientific minded we have to keep all unproven theories out of our speculation and let the evidence take us to the actual answers.
Wow. Just wow on these comments. What attack dogs? Oh, you mean the standard procedures of peer review where you must defend your research from alternative explanations? Did you read the papers where these attack dogs simply suggested other explanations? VICIOUS. Of course, maybe you're referring to the personal attacks...oh wait, those didn't happen either. Welcome to the standard peer review process, something I'd wager everyone in this thread has no experience with.
And I seriously laugh at all these people in this discussion who are saying that since these tissues cannot survive millions of years, because science said so, it must be a young earth, though science must be wrong on the hundreds of other evidences that point to an old earth.
As for the YEC's, I'll let Dr. Schweitzer speak for herself on them. This quote is from a previous article (and Dr. Schweizter is a Christian): ?They treat you really bad. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.?
Actually science isn't wrong, but that scientists who misrepresent data, in order to promote a ill-preconceived position are wrong. All of the data actually point to a flood, and not to some insanely old earth. The very fact that petrified forests are found, in some cases, standing upright, in the midst of sedemental strata that (supposedly) took millions of years to deposit, is one of many such cases -- and I do mean many.
Did you notice the attack dogs that went after these folks after they published their data? What calls itself the "scientific community" today is really just a network of professional students that live off of government funding. This "community" invented the 4.5 billion year-old earth fable to try and support the time needed for all that "evolution" to occur. This same brain trust is now spending millions to mine water on the moon. The did do a great job of creating for themselves a niche. They now hold fancy titles and feed out of the public trough....and they'll bite the hand of anyone who threatens their status as "masters of reality" (...don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain). The truth is that these clowns can't even explain the complexity of the single cell organisms....in many cases far more complex than multi-cellular. The findings of B-Rex clearly support a young earth history. No surprise to many of us who have know this for years. I think what is most pathetic here is that those that claim to weigh the facts in a search for truth knowingly suppress truth to protect their status.
I agree. I've never been a fan of the "scientific community" and how they basically get free money from the government in the form of "research grants" but contribute nothing to advance society in return. I mean, I could support this arrangement if it had ever led to a new medical treatment, more efficient methods of food production, or similar things that would prevent many people from dying due to preventable illness or starvation. The "scientific community" also never makes the lives of everyday people any easier. With all of that free government money, no "scientist" has ever used it to develop new methods of transportation like jet aircraft or even to make them safer. "Scientists" are even too afraid to use grants to develop and streamline new methods of communication like cell phones and the internet because they know that we'd all just use it to study ideas that they don't like. Shame on you, "scientists", for not doing any of these things.
It is very interesting that this report says nothing about the possibility of an incorrect age of the earth by some scientists. The only thing she says this might challenge is how long soft tissue can last. I would like to see them prove scientificly (not mythically) that soft tissue could survive over 500,000 years. The dogma of Evolution is alive and well. Schweitzer was scared to reveal her discovery not because of ridicule but because it goes against the religion of evolution and proves a young earth. So this begs the question of what other discoveries have scientists kept hidden because it goes against evolution?????
How in the world can a news program justify not pressing on the obvious question which was if T.Rex was supposed to have gone extinct 65 MILLION YEARS ago then how is there blood vessels and soft tissue in this bone? You don't have to be a paleontologist to realize that given even just a short one million years there shouldn't have been any soft tissue let alone another 64 million after that...at what point do the number of years start to sound ridiculous given this soft tissue? A worm in the sun dries to a crisp in about two days. Shame on CBS and 60 minutes for not asking the hard questions like they used to. You can bet if the story was young Earth creationism the hard questions would have been asked though.
Precisely my own observations, and I think it's glaringly obvious to all of us who subscribe neither to an old earth, nor (especially) to evolution -- and with good reason.
Since when did macro evolution become fact? People hold onto their preconceived ideas about macro evolution and millions of years and make that the basis of all other understanding. I welcome new discoveries as they continue to point to a young earth and at the same time, I am disappointed by those (including the media) who hold to a "millions of years old earth" in spite of the evidence otherwise. Similarities in anatomical characteristics point to a common creator, not a common ancestor, or has the media not read Genesis chapter 1? or 1 Corinthians 15:38? I challenge you to study the side of creation...you will be amazed at what you learn!!! check out www.answersingenesis.org
Wamda Kohn, Leesburg, FL
Your Bible is as much fact as the bedtime stories my mother put me to sleep with. Open your eyes. Use your brain. It can be useful sometimes. This is an amazing discovery.
Wow! I was exited to see this undeniable evidence of a young earth. Congrats to that scientist for finding this remarkable tissue inside of that bone. I believe even greater advancements in understanding dinosaurs could be acheived if these scientists and CBS would keep an open mind in their analysis and conclusions. Instead of reformulating your tissue degeneration calculations why not reformulate your theory of the age of the earth? Are you concerned that it might point more toward the creator?
nothing is conclusive... but imagine this... critics are saying that it is contaminant.... why don't they do it themselves and find out? Also, the proteins that were sequence are similar to emu or ostrich... do you see those animals lying around, contaminating the bones?
It is clear some have not fully understood the report and no nothing of geology or paleontology. The report disclosed no information contradicting millions of years of evolution. Clearly, the report was concerning REMNANTS of soft tissue and the possible genetic link between dinosaurs and modern birds. WATCH THE VIDEO, AGAIN!
How do you know what any of know about anything much less Geology or Paleontology. There are many practicing Geologists, Paleontologists and other scientists who do not buy into evolution.
What part of "...soft tissue cannot possibly exist beyond 1 million years." did you not understand? In fact, soft tissue could not survive beyond 10,000 years.
THEY DID NOT BREAK OPEN A BONE AND SOFT TISSUE SPILLED OUT!!! Fossilization is still being understood and it has just seen that soft tissue STRUCTURES can be preserved for long periods of time. This is discovery that helps adjust our understanding of fossilization. It does not say the planet is 6000 years old. As far as geologists and paleontologists who "do not buy into evolution"....they are called creationists and they twist the data to fit to their "literal" interpretation of Genesis without doing the real research. This is an ungodly practice and their demand for a literal view of Genesis reveals a short-sited understanding of ancient people and Biblical translation.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
To say that his once ?controversial? theory is now widely ?accepted? because of some features found on both dinosaurs and birds is not scientific; it is his ?Opinion?.
Science would still not have classified dinosaurs or T-Rex with birds in our current grouping system due to some major structure differences but we are doing so with evolution?
I need much more evidence to believe that a bird is a dinosaur then to believe you found blood that is 50 million years old.
Both speculations are laughable but both are being taught as proven fact with no more then a ?theory? and some one?s opinion. There is no proof and shows like this are proving otherwise. As we still conduct scientific testing we are being bombarded with information and facts that are disproving our evolutionary theories and leaving us with nothing more then ?young earth?.
Someone claimed there was millions of evidences and I can tell you, I have researched these evidences and they are all either disprove theories or they are hoaxes being still taught as fact. ?peppered moth?, ?Piltdown man?, ?Nebraska man?, and ?Neanderthal?. I can list more issues with evolution and old earth then can be given as proof of it.
If we are to be scientific minded we have to keep all unproven theories out of our speculation and let the evidence take us to the actual answers.
And I seriously laugh at all these people in this discussion who are saying that since these tissues cannot survive millions of years, because science said so, it must be a young earth, though science must be wrong on the hundreds of other evidences that point to an old earth.
As for the YEC's, I'll let Dr. Schweitzer speak for herself on them. This quote is from a previous article (and Dr. Schweizter is a Christian): ?They treat you really bad. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.?
Wamda Kohn, Leesburg, FL
What part of "...soft tissue cannot possibly exist beyond 1 million years." did you not understand? In fact, soft tissue could not survive beyond 10,000 years.