← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 17554 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2005-03-28
2005-03-28 17:08 | User Profile
"There are always two tensions in scientific exploration. One is the effort to consolidate the known facts into a stable theory. The other is to discover new facts - with no guarantee whether they will reinforce or undermine the old consolidations. Last week a dinosaur bone upset everyone's expectations in ways that may ripple outward for a long time.
Workers at a field site in Montana had broken the 70-million-year-old fossilized thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex in half for purely logistical reasons - huge bone, small helicopter. When scientists examined the bone fragments in the lab, they discovered something no one expected to find - unfossilized soft tissue, including blood vessels and the cells that line them.
Just how these tissues were preserved is a very good question, one that may lead scientists to re-examine their theories of fossilization. This discovery has also led at least one of the scientists on the study team to speculate that there may be more dinosaur soft tissue hidden inside the large but unbroken dinosaur bones that already repose in museum collections. But it's hard to think of the words "soft tissue" and "Tyrannosaurus rex" without also thinking "DNA" and "Jurassic Park." And one of the central questions will be whether scientists are able to extract from these samples any fragments of T. rex's genetic code or, in fact, any proteins at all.
We're not likely to wake up one morning and read that some embryonic Tyrannosaurus is waiting to be hatched on a remote tropical island. That is the stuff of thrillers, which have a way of foreshortening history (and probability). What these soft tissues may do is help to lay history before us, giving us a clearer picture of the relation between life on Earth now and life as it was before that great extinction 65 million years ago.
Somehow it seems appropriate that this discovery came from the bone of a Tyrannosaurus, the most familiar, and fearsome, of those ancient species, a creature that perfectly embodies the pleasure of science. We wake up thinking we know what we know, only to find that we have to think all over again."
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/opinion/28mon4.html?th&emc=th[/url]
2005-03-28 23:13 | User Profile
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6228-2005Mar28.html[/url]
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/[/url]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/24/rex.tissue.ap/[/url]
[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.[/img]
[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge[/img]
[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.[/img]
2005-03-28 23:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE]When scientists examined the bone fragments in the lab, they discovered something no one expected to find - unfossilized soft tissue, including blood vessels and the cells that line them. [/QUOTE] This should prove interesting.
2005-03-29 00:44 | User Profile
"WASHINGTON - A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil dug out of a hunk of sandstone has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday."
Notice how they lead things off presuming the T-rex is seventy million years old. IOW, the evidence must be made to fit the theory and not vice versa.
Now if we're talking about it being a couple or three thousand years old, well then it suddenly starts making some sense.
2005-03-29 03:48 | User Profile
wood can partially petrify in under a year in the right enviornment....
2005-03-29 06:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]"WASHINGTON - A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil dug out of a hunk of sandstone has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday."
Notice how they lead things off presuming the T-rex is seventy million years old. IOW, the evidence must be made to fit the theory and not vice versa.
Now if we're talking about it being a couple or three thousand years old, well then it suddenly starts making some sense.[/QUOTE] I doubt they just pulled the figure of 70 million out of the air, Tex.
Fossils can be aged in more than one way. They generally infer the age of a fossil from the stratigraphy of the rock in which it was embedded (as well as the surrounding rock, etc.). Geology plays a central role in such matters. Carbon dating and other methods can also be used. The idea is to use multiple methods of dating, each of which gives a possible range of ages for the sample. The overlap (or intersection) of those ranges then gives the approximate age of the fossil.
For example: Let's say that a geological analysis gives us the result that a fossil is between 65 and 80 million years old. (In general I doubt the range would be anywhere near that wide, but I'm not a geologist). Then suppose carbon dating gives a range of 50-75 million years. Based on these numbers alone, 70 million years would be a good rough estimate. In general, other factors (analyses of other fossils in the vicinity, etc.) could also be used to make the estimate even more precise.
If you are hoping to see scientific support for a "young earth," then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Scientists are more likely to one day discover that the earth is flat than that it's less than a billion years old. That is not an exaggeration. (There never was any "firmament," either. That's simply what ancient goatherders thought the sky was.)
2005-03-29 12:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I doubt they just pulled the figure of 70 million out of the air, Tex.
Fossils can be aged in more than one way. They generally infer the age of a fossil from the stratigraphy of the rock in which it was embedded (as well as the surrounding rock, etc.). Geology plays a central role in such matters. Carbon dating and other methods can also be used. The idea is to use multiple methods of dating, each of which gives a possible range of ages for the sample. The overlap (or intersection) of those ranges then gives the approximate age of the fossil.
For example: Let's say that a geological analysis gives us the result that a fossil is between 65 and 80 million years old. (In general I doubt the range would be anywhere near that wide, but I'm not a geologist). Then suppose carbon dating gives a range of 50-75 million years. Based on these numbers alone, 70 million years would be a good rough estimate. In general, other factors (analyses of other fossils in the vicinity, etc.) could also be used to make the estimate even more precise.
If you are hoping to see scientific support for a "young earth," then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Scientists are more likely to one day discover that the earth is flat than that it's less than a billion years old. That is not an exaggeration. (There never was any "firmament," either. That's simply what ancient goatherders thought the sky was.)[/QUOTE]
Evolution is a non-provable theory, yet schools and universities teach it as though it is fact. The same JEWISH controlled education system that teaches evolution belittles Christianity. Doesn’t that tell you anything?
The geological column: the shaky evolutionary foundation.
The geological time chart (geological column) is an arrangement of rocks that supposedly chart the course of the earth’s history. Right? It is said to correspond to the actual rock layers of the earth, which are named according to the divisions on the chart. The geologic column supposedly reveals a sequence of progressively more complex fossils in the rocks. Right??
The geologic column is divided into 4 major eras (time divisions), each of which covers several hundred million years. The eras are then divided into smaller units of time called periods, which are subdivided into epochs. The four major eras, in order, are the Precambrian, the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic, and the Cenozoic. The Precambrian Era is sometimes further subdivided. So far, so good, huh?
Certain fossils, known as guide fossils, or index fossils, are considered characteristic of a specific period and are used to identify rock layers in the field. (The rock layer containing a certain type of trilobite (a small, extinct marine crustacean) would be classified as Cambrian, for example).
Although it is presented as conclusive evidence for evolution, the geologic column crumbles upon closer inspection. Why? Firstly, IT OCCURS NOWHERE IN THE WORLD. You cannot see the entire geological column ANYWHERE in the WORLD, at one time – it does not exist!!! If this isn’t bad enough, in many places the fossil arrangement CONTRADICTS THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN!! In the Swiss Alps, there is a part of the “geological column”, in the correct order – except it is REVERSED!! Also, there commonly are “misplaced fossils” – fossils found in the “wrong” order in undisturbed strata. Either the rocks contain the fossils they “should not”, or they do not contain the “proper sequence” of fossils they should (according to the geological column).
Carbon-14 dating – scientists have learned that all living things absorb a radioactive substance into their system from the air (called carbon-14 or radiocarbon). After anything dies, this radiocarbon decays at a known rate every year. The amount of radiocarbon left in the remains at a given time tells scientists how long it has been dead.
Radiometric dating:
Evolutionists use a technique known as radiometric dating to assign “absolute” ages to rocks and fossils. Radiometric dating is based on the fact that radioactive elements decay into other elements (known as their “daughter” elements) at relatively constant rates. A method commonly used for relatively “recent” dates on the evolutionary time scale (less than 50,000) uses the element carbon-14, which decays into nitrogen-14 over time (other common elements used in radiometric dating are potassium-40, rubidium-87, and uranium-235 and 238). The half-life of an element can be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil if the original and final amounts of radioactive element in the sample are known. Although the final amount of element in the sample is easily measured, there is NO WAY TO MEASURE HOW MUCH OF THE ELEMENT WAS IN THE SAMPLE ORININALLY!!! The scientist seeks to answer this question by making calculations based on several guesses: 1. how much of the “daughter” element did the sample originally contain? 2. how much of the “parent” element entered or escaped the sample during the decay process? And 3. how much of the “daughter” element entered or escaped the sample during the decay process?
To answer those questions the scientist must make “reasonable” GUESSES, which are based on his/her evolutionary beliefs/assumptions.
****Thus, circular reasoning (a classic example, favored by Creationists is how rocks date the fossils, and fossils date the rocks), enters the argument again: the assumption of evolution is used to answer the various questions, which are used to calculate a date, which “proves” the theory of evolution. If a date is obtained that does not fit the geologic column, it is very simple to adjust one’s estimates of parent of daughter elements originally present in order to come up with a date that fits the evolutionary time scale. Thus, it can be said that RADIOACTIVE DATES ARE LARGELY DETERMINED BY THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PERSON DOING THE DATING. If evolutionary assumptions are replaced with creationist assumptions, the dates given by several of the best methods (carbon-14 and uranium-lead methods) are totally different.
2005-03-29 12:15 | User Profile
From the great delphic
"a few points
Evolution cannot and does not attempt to explain everything - it seems even its non idelogical supporters (or non political ) attest to that.
The Story of Adam and Eve may be metrophirical, may be, like many stories in many religions have an essence of truth....Dust thou art and to dust thy will returneth....is one of the most succinct descriptions of the human condition..
Theology and science are two different things - don't mix them up. A scientist looks at a painting and tells us what chemicals were used to make the paints. an arti historian tells us of its beauty. Both are necessary veiwpoints for man.
the theory of evolution - or even of the origins of the universe are even more irrational than fundementalism as they say all of the order and beauty of the universerce and all the laws, variations and most of all, life, came from random nothingness. How more irrational can you get?
Most science oriented people on this board will be surprised to know a great number of scientists believe in God - including physiscist the recently released "rebuiligng the matrix" is a good example, but there are several 'readers" of science/theology available. I suggest everyone participating in this thread give them a look."
2005-03-30 17:17 | User Profile
Evolution is a non-provable theory, yet schools and universities teach it as though it is fact. The same JEWISH controlled education system that teaches evolution belittles Christianity. Doesnââ¬â¢t that tell you anything? Jews do not control science. They don't even influence it in many scientifically-advanced nations (e.g., Japan). Yet apart from a handful of crackpots (which you'll find in any field), biologists, paleontologists, etc., from all over the world agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Furthermore, many (maybe all?) Orthodox Jews reject evolution. They believe in the same Old Testament fairy-tales as fundamentalist Christians.
Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science. While nothing is ever considered 100% proven in science, evolution comes about as close as a theory can get to 100% certainty. The evidence for it comes from many disparate areas of science using independent methods of investigation, and it all points in the same direction.
As for the rest of your post: Where are you getting that nonsensical information about geology and radiometric dating?
2005-03-30 17:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Jews do not control science. They don't even influence it in many scientifically-advanced nations (e.g., Japan). Yet apart from a handful of crackpots (which you'll find in any field), biologists, paleontologists, etc., from all over the world agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Furthermore, many (maybe all?) Orthodox Jews reject evolution. They believe in the same Old Testament fairy-tales as fundamentalist Christians.
Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science. While nothing is ever considered 100% proven in science, evolution comes about as close as a theory can get to 100% certainty. The evidence for it comes from many disparate areas of science using independent methods of investigation, and it all points in the same direction.[/QUOTE]
Amen! Preach it, brother!
2005-03-31 12:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Jews do not control science. They don't even influence it in many scientifically-advanced nations (e.g., Japan). Yet apart from a handful of crackpots (which you'll find in any field), biologists, paleontologists, etc., from all over the world agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Furthermore, many (maybe all?) Orthodox Jews reject evolution. They believe in the same Old Testament fairy-tales as fundamentalist Christians.
Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science. While nothing is ever considered 100% proven in science, evolution comes about as close as a theory can get to 100% certainty. The evidence for it comes from many disparate areas of science using independent methods of investigation, and it all points in the same direction.
As for the rest of your post: Where are you getting that nonsensical information about geology and radiometric dating?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and they don't control the media either.
2005-03-31 12:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Amen! Preach it, brother![/QUOTE]
"Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science. While nothing is ever considered 100% proven in science, evolution comes about as close as a theory can get to 100% certainty. The evidence for it comes from many disparate areas of science using independent methods of investigation, and it all points in the same direction."
You support this?
2005-03-31 12:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Yeah, and they don't control the media either.[/QUOTE]
Ummm... Charles Darwin wasn't Jewish. It's not like we're talking about some crackpot pseudoscience like psychoanalysis here.
2005-03-31 15:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]"Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science. While nothing is ever considered 100% proven in science, evolution comes about as close as a theory can get to 100% certainty. The evidence for it comes from many disparate areas of science using independent methods of investigation, and it all points in the same direction."
You support this?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the sarcasm was a bit too subtle. With my religious/church praise comment, I was merely trying to show how Angler is every bit the rabid fundie he tries to paint creationists as. He just thumps the evolution theory and so-called science instead of the Bible. Of course we all know that's the bottom line reason for evolution in the first place--to deny God and His Word.
I support a six 24 hour day creation about six or seven thousand years ago i.e. a literal reading of Genesis.
2005-03-31 16:00 | User Profile
Colonel,
Some folks evidently missed the story from the Weekly World News last Tuesday reporting on the capture of an Allosaurus just 17 miles northwest of Lubbock. Here's proof:
[img]http://tonova.typepad.com/thesuddencurve/images/gwangi_image.jpg[/img]
2005-03-31 16:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Colonel,
Some folks evidently missed the story from the Weekly World News last Tuesday reporting on the capture of an Allosaurus just 17 miles northwest of Lubbock. Here's proof:[/QUOTE]
A-ha! See, there you go!
You beat me to the punch, though. I was actually about to post a picture that gives Angler's 'evolution' fantasy some support: pics of Kevin Costner with gills from 'Waterworld'. :)
2005-03-31 16:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]A-ha! See, there you go!
You beat me to the punch, though. I was actually about to post a picture that gives Angler's 'evolution' fantasy some support: pics of Kevin Costner with gills from 'Waterworld'. :)[/QUOTE]
Even Darwinians scoff at the Lamarckian and Lysenkoist extremes. Stephen J. Gould was a walking hoax--and unremittingly hostile to Euro-American folk as well...