- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Dinosaur Soft Tissue Problem (Videos)
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:02 pm
The problem got started back in 2005, when Mary Schweitzer found flexible, transparent collagen in the fossilised leg of a Tyrannosaurus rex specimen.
The problem is the soft tissue isn't suppose to be there if dinosaurs are millions of years old.
Video 1: Mary Schweitzer interview on 60 Minutes (2:44)
I stole this from the comment section on Youtube:
The video below is from Mark Armitage's YouTube page. Mark Armitage has been a microscope scientist (microscopist) for 30 years. He was the president of the Southern California Society for Microscopy for several years. He has some 30 publications to his credit.
This is a pretty good video that sums things up. Lawrence Krauss is in it offering his 2 cents.
Video 2: DinoSummary Earth is YOUNG (32:41)
EXTRA VIDEOS: Mark Destroys Iron Preservation Hypothesis
Iron1 (28:46)
IRON1B (11:17)
IRON 2A - Critics who defend "Iron Preservation" of dinosaur tissues (21:41)
The problem is the soft tissue isn't suppose to be there if dinosaurs are millions of years old.
Video 1: Mary Schweitzer interview on 60 Minutes (2:44)
I stole this from the comment section on Youtube:
quote:
Schweitzer admits that she didn't want to tell anybody because she'd be ridiculed. Why? Because all scientific laboratory tests established that organic bio-material completely decays long before even ONE million years!
And when Horner & Schweitzer published their results in the journal Science, they were promptly attacked!
By whom? Creationists?? NO!, by evolutionists who knew the findings implicated that dinosaurs lived MUCH more recently than evolutionists believe. The critics screamed "Contamination!" and accused Schweitzer of mistaking bacterial biofilm for blood vessels. WHY? Because they KNEW that original soft-tissue could NOT avoid decay for even ONE-HUNDREDTH of that time!
Then, if that wasn't "bad" enough, she also discovered soft-tissue in an EIGHTY MILLION YEAR OLD DINOSAUR!!
But WAIT!! Hot off the presses! Soft-tissue has now been discovered in a fossil OVER 500 MILLION YEARS OLD!
Folks, science has already proven that soft-tissue CANNOT last that long, so we have to face the fact that dinosaurs are only THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, NOT MILLIONS!!!
The video below is from Mark Armitage's YouTube page. Mark Armitage has been a microscope scientist (microscopist) for 30 years. He was the president of the Southern California Society for Microscopy for several years. He has some 30 publications to his credit.
This is a pretty good video that sums things up. Lawrence Krauss is in it offering his 2 cents.
Video 2: DinoSummary Earth is YOUNG (32:41)
EXTRA VIDEOS: Mark Destroys Iron Preservation Hypothesis
Iron1 (28:46)
IRON1B (11:17)
IRON 2A - Critics who defend "Iron Preservation" of dinosaur tissues (21:41)
26
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:04 pm to Langland
youre not seriously trying to argue that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old, i hope.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:07 pm to Langland
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:08 pm to Honky Lips
quote:
youre not seriously trying to argue that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old, i hope.
if the science in the OP indicates it that way, will you argue against science?
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:09 pm to Langland
O, great
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:10 pm to Langland
Is this a WYHI?
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:13 pm to Langland
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:13 pm to Langland
quote:
Yeah... I think I would
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:15 pm to GarmischTiger
quote:
Is this a WYHI?
Why not? I would. I bet she looked pretty good in her prime.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:16 pm to GarmischTiger
quote:
Is this a WYHI?
It's a WYPIST (Would You Preserve Its' Soft Tissue) thread actually.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:16 pm to Pecker
quote:
Yeah... I think I would
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:19 pm to Honky Lips
quote:
youre not seriously trying to argue that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old, i hope.
We got ourselves a science denier.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:19 pm to Langland
I have no idea what any of that means, but scientist tend to always disprove themselves. They make a bunch of wild arse guesses and know that most of us don't give enough of a shite to question them.
Step 1: Get funding to solve a huge mystery that has no real bearing on mankind.
Step 2: Use up funding then throw a wild arse guess at the mystery. Call it a theory so you don't look like an arse when someone calls bullshite.
Step 3: Find a new mystery and repeat steps 1 and 2.
Step 4: Get more funding to disprove wild arse guess in Step 2.
Rinse and repeat
Step 1: Get funding to solve a huge mystery that has no real bearing on mankind.
Step 2: Use up funding then throw a wild arse guess at the mystery. Call it a theory so you don't look like an arse when someone calls bullshite.
Step 3: Find a new mystery and repeat steps 1 and 2.
Step 4: Get more funding to disprove wild arse guess in Step 2.
Rinse and repeat
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:20 pm to Langland
I think it is at least remotely possible that something is very very wrong with our radiocarbon dating system. It is possible that changes in radioactivity, solar activity, and the strength of our planet's magnetic field could cause the dates to actually be far more recent than indicated. I'm no young earth creationist, and I have not been convinced that this is the case, but I have seen enough to keep an open mind about the possibility.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:26 pm to Sidicous
You botched a soft tissue joke opportunity
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:31 pm to Langland
I can't believe people actually think dinosaurs existed.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:35 pm to Langland
oh I wish Beejon still posted
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:36 pm to CapperVin
Let's get down to brass tacks. Does this mean we can clone dinosaurs for a theme park or not?
Posted on 1/6/17 at 10:40 pm to Uncle Stu
quote:where u be these day bro ?
Uncle Stu
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News