"Dinosaurs may be tipping the scale in favor of a young earth"...

[loco]

Dinosaurs may be tipping the scale in favor of a young earth, especially in light of recent discoveries, namely soft tissue found in the remnants of a T-rex. The problem with that is soft tissue (by evolutionists' own admittance) can't last for millions of years, the alleged age of that dinosaur, but for a much shorter period of time (read thousands of years).

So, soft tissue found in a dinosaur's remains means one of two things:

1) Soft tissue can last longer than previously thought possible, or...........

2) That dinosaur ain't millions of years old, as previously thought.

As for the caveman, how many foul-ups, bleeps, and blunders have we seen with that one?

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
"Will they now be convinced?
Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific)."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html
"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

[columbusdude82]

Loco,

answersingenesis is hardly a reliable scientific source. They have an agenda to push, after all.

I will wait for the carbon-dating results. I am not opposed to the idea of a young earth, or the idea that some dinosaurs may have continued to survive long past the date of their supposed extinction 65 million years ago.

But for me to change my mind, I need to see scientific evidence at least as compelling as the evidence that leads me to think the earth is not "young" (in the sense you have in mind) and the dinosaurs died out 65 million or so years ago.

Science does not rely on dogma. It relies on evidence.

AIG and the like are all dogma: when the evidence contradicts their dogma, it's the evidence that they throw out!

[loco]

Science does not rely on dogma. It relies on evidence.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna
"By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma"

[loco]

They have an agenda to push, after all.

I don't know.  Do they? 

What about secular scientists? Do they not have an agenda too, to obscure evidence, hurry with research, etc., in order to obtain or to maintain recognition and funding?

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
"That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines. Horner and others regarded Schweitzer's research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, "most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, 'I just don't believe it.' She was having a hard time publishing in journals."

"Until that moment, no one had ever identified that tissue in a dinosaur, making it impossible to definitively sex such an animal. "Everything we've ever tried to do has been an utter guess," Schweitzer says"

"Schweitzer agrees. "I am a slam-dunk scientist," she says. "I would have much rather held the paper back until we had reams and reams of data." But without publishing a journal article, she says, she could never have hoped for funding. "Without the papers in Science, I didn't stand a chance," she says. "That's the saddest part about doing science in America: You are totally driven by what gets you funding." Since publishing, Schweitzer has conducted many of the analyses Poinar suggests, with initially promising results."

[OzmO]

This is really interesting stuff.

But that's the thing about researching the past.  There's is soo much assumption and endless possibilities. 

Perhaps some dinosaurs were never extinct until 10,000 years ago.

[loco]

I am not opposed to the idea of a young earth, or the idea that some dinosaurs may have continued to survive long past the date of their supposed extinction 65 million years ago.

But that is not what secular scientists are saying at all.  They are saying that the earth is billions of years old for sure.  And about the T-rex soft tissue, they say

“The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’"

So anyway you put it, they were wrong after assuring everyone that they were right and after laughing at and trying to ridicule creationists for speaking of a young earth and for saying dinosaurs lived among humans.

[OzmO]

So anyway you put it, they were wrong after assuring everyone that they were right and after laughing at and trying to ridicule creationists for speaking of a young earth and for saying dinosaurs lived among humans

They could also be dead wrong about tissue being able to survive encased in Bone for billions of years.

[loco]

They could also be dead wrong about tissue being able to survive encased in Bone for billions of years.

Yes, MCWAY mentions that at the top.  But so far they are not admitting to being wrong about that either.  They are still sure that this T-rex is 65 million years old, but that soft tissue cannot be preserved for nearly that long.


Anyway you put it, this is very humbling to secular scientists.  I hope that they'll think twice before laughing at and attempting to ridicule creationists in the future.

[loco]

I will wait for the carbon-dating results.

Is carbon dating 100% reliable?

[OzmO]

Yes, MCWAY mentions that at the top.  But so far they are not admitting to being wrong about that either.  They are still sure that this T-rex is 65 million years old.

Anyway you put it, this is very humbling to secular scientists.  I hope that they'll think twice before laughing at and attempting to ridicule creationists in the future.

The truth is in both lines of thought, not entirely in one.   That much is for sure and as we see more and more stuff like this it only supports that assertion.

[loco]

The truth is in both lines of thought, not entirely in one.   That much is for sure and as we see more and more stuff like this it only supports that assertion.

What do you mean, OzmO?

[OzmO]

What do you mean, OzmO?

What i mean is that science is still far from knowing the whole truth and much of what's in Genesis may be a metaphor of that truth.

For example:  Dark Matter, Quantum Physics, why gravity works, etc....

[loco]

What i mean is that science is still far from knowing the whole truth

I agree. 

[columbusdude82]

Is carbon dating 100% reliable?

It is far more reliable than the creation myths of Iron Age nomads.

[beatmaster]

It is far more reliable than the creation myths of Iron Age nomads.

good call..........

damn, what about atlantis, was it before or after  ..... and the terrestrial impact craters, are they wrong again? comets, caveman.......

[loco]

It is far more reliable than the creation myths of Iron Age nomads.

I didn't ask which is more reliable. I asked

Is carbon dating 100% reliable?

[WOOO]

I didn't ask which is more reliable. I asked

Is carbon dating 100% reliable?

yes, give or take a few thousand years....