Jump to content


Smithsonian


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:20 AM

My wife brought a Smithsonian article about Dr. Schweizter's T-Rex Bone/Blood-Cell discovery to my attention.

Its essentially a propganda piece about how "shocked" they were to find the blood vessels, but how pleased they were that the bones are like bird bones since that's they're idea.

Of course they take a shot at YEC's, and how mad she is at them for twisting her discoveries. However; the only defense of the age of the bones is that geologists dated them, and that's it.

She of course accepts that the bones are 65 million years old, even though she is staring at evidence to the contrary, litterally "right under her nose".

At one point she says "There's a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assupmptions about".

Well, I agree with her on that, but she's barking up the wrong tree....

Terry

#2 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 13 May 2006 - 04:26 PM

My wife brought a Smithsonian article about Dr. Schweizter's T-Rex Bone/Blood-Cell discovery to my attention.

Its essentially a propganda piece about how "shocked" they were to find the blood vessels, but how pleased they were that the bones are like bird bones since that's they're idea.

Of course they take a shot at YEC's, and how mad she is at them for twisting her discoveries.  However; the only defense of the age of the bones is that geologists dated them, and that's it. 

She of course accepts that the bones are 65 million years  old, even though she is staring at evidence to the contrary, litterally "right under her nose".

At one point she says "There's a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assupmptions about".

Well, I agree with her on that, but she's barking up the wrong tree....

Terry

View Post

Well we can always explain something away we don't find convenient. Afterall, evolution is a "fact" of the natural world so the evidence must fit that timeline.
Have a look at
Talk Origin's response. Nothing unusual, accusing AIG of lying about the finds and not using appropriate resources.

#3 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 May 2006 - 02:09 PM

Is there a link to the Smithsonian article in question?

#4 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 14 May 2006 - 09:30 PM

Well we can always explain something away we don't find convenient. Afterall, evolution is a "fact" of the natural world so the evidence must fit that timeline.
Have a look at
Talk Origin's response. Nothing unusual, accusing AIG of lying about the finds and not using appropriate resources.

View Post


You should see his response to the more recent find in April 2005, where actual soft tissue is observed, that completely nullified his original desperate attempt you linked above to detract and obfuscate on the 1997 find. Watching him now squirm in his response to the April 2005 was both sad, and I must say comical:

http://www.talkorigi...saur/flesh.html

He achieves his coup-de-tat in evo-babble all in one article, as he wasted no time including scores of ad hominem attacks, massive equivocation, the usual dose of strawmen, and the inevitable red herrings.

If we ever find a living dinosaur, I would not be able to stand the drama waiting for Hurd's spin of that! :)

Fred

#5 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 14 May 2006 - 10:36 PM

You should see his response to the more recent find in April 2005, where actual soft tissue is observed, that completely nullified his original desperate attempt you linked above to detract and obfuscate on the 1997 find. Watching him now squirm in his response to the April 2005 was both sad, and I must say comical:

http://www.talkorigi...saur/flesh.html

He achieves his coup-de-tat in evo-babble all in one article, as he wasted no time including scores of ad hominem attacks, massive equivocation, the usual dose of strawmen, and the inevitable red herrings.

If we ever find a living dinosaur, I would not be able to stand the drama waiting for Hurd's spin of that! :)
ha
Fred

View Post


One example:

The creationist public is ill served by a cadre of professionals whose major product is an outrageous distortion of scientific research. They also promote a version of theology that I am not qualified to comment on personally, but is clearly contradicted by representatives of nearly every mainline Christian denomination in the world today. This is clearly evidenced by An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science that has been endorsed the date of this writing by over three thousand members of the clergy.


1.) I find it fascinating that qualified scientists, who happen to believe in creation, can be ridiculed for simply not accepting the theory. I wonder if Talk Origins thinks it is possible to criticize evolution and have common sense at the same time? Apparently not. The above statement is nothing more than a generalization of an entire group of people. Just like me saying all liberals are socialists! While it is tempting to say it really is not true.

2.) Does it matter what "three thousand members of the clergy" say? Of course not! As Christians we care what the Bible has to say, and it happens to be very clear on the issue of creation. You can't put too much emphasis on what the "experts" say, study and learn for yourself.

Of course they take a shot at YEC's, and how mad she is at them for twisting her discoveries. However; the only defense of the age of the bones is that geologists dated them, and that's it.

Funny you should mention:

So, the MOR 1125 femur reported by Schweitzer et al happens to be one of the better dated dinosaur bones known to exist. The independently established age of this bone is based on 86 separate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series. It doesn't get much better than that.

I have heard this same line of reasoning many times in the few years I have been interested in this creation/evolution debate. Which goes something like this, "Even if you found soft tissue the dating of the material confirms our hypothesis." It seems the idea of a younger age for this material is simply inconceivable.

Hurd continues:

The appearance of soft tissue, hard tissue or no tissue has no bearing in the age of this material- organic or inorganic. What is the basis for these age determinations is the independent existence of geochemical "clocks" known as radiometric dating.

So my question would be, why not? It is not common for this kind of material to survive for 60 plus million years. So why not consider another interpretation of data? Why must everything conform to the establishment?

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 May 2006 - 01:42 PM

‘Soft tissue’, sequence of events.

1. T’ Rex bone opened.

2. Reported soft tissue inside,

3. Claims of “how can soft tissue survive in something 65my old” (poor interpretations of less than accurate media releases).

The misconception:

The ‘soft tissue’ is not some bone marrow like you get from your Sunday roast, no, it is preserved ‘soft tissue’ i.e. fossilised soft tissue.


From the talk origins link: (my bold)

"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins,


The ‘soft tissue’ is still a fossil. Indeed there are far older examples than Tyrannosaurus Rex, from the same link: (my bole)

Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."


If anyone should be criticised it should be the media for not understanding the issue, i.e. most fossils are just casts, the scientist were ecstatic about the preservation of something more detailed than a cast, (which they called it ‘soft tissue’). And from that point on a leap to ‘unaltered soft tissue’ tissue has been made. No doubt because of the popularity of the movie Jurassic Park.

From the BBC

Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance.



#7 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:22 PM

The misconception:

The ‘soft tissue’ is not some bone marrow like you get from your Sunday roast, no, it is preserved ‘soft tissue’ i.e. fossilised soft tissue.

That's correct, what was found according to Dr. Schweitzer,

A third vessel shows small microstructures either within or attached to the vessel wall. The structures are ovoid and possess an inner opaque core. They are completely consistent in size and shape with nucleated circulating blood cells taken from mature ostrich (D) and extant chicken


Posted Image

So far it has been reported that what has been recovered is organic material. She has said what has been found is intact dinosaurian tissue, there is no questioning that part of the discovery. Allegedly, there is a mechanism for preserving this material for such long time. That's what this whole thing is going to come down to, explaining how this material was preserved over the long ages. Everything else will be far less important. Dr. Hurd claimed in the TO essay that Dr. Weiland made three errors, which I find two of them to be superficial.

-Weiland says the find is "So obvious to the naked eye," and Dr. Hurd takes issue with that. That seems quite superficial and off point. The real issue is we have the capability to view it and reach conclusion.

-Weiland says the tissue is unfossilized. Granted he should not have said that.

Weiland says this find demonstrates that the previous ideas that these fossils lasted for long ages is not correct. I think this is a fair stance for Weiland. Considering that we now have two examples of biological material being preserved in 65 million year old fossils. He is supposedly incorrect because the dating methods will return the age despite the condition of the bones. Which of course begs the question, how do you know the dates being given are accurate. Except for a few errors in how he worded his article, claiming the material is completely unfossilized and fresh, he has not said anything outrageous.

The ‘soft tissue’ is still a fossil. Indeed there are far older examples than Tyrannosaurus Rex, from the same link: (my bole)

Nevertheless, this scenario is an uncommon which is what lead to the original skepticism that the T-Rex was as old as commonly held. Of course there is an explanation presented of how a mechanism could have preserved the tissue. However, the issue is not resolved yet and we should be open minded until everything is conclusive. This still begs the question of how you know how old something is based on various dating methods.

If anyone should be criticised it should be the media for not understanding the issue, i.e. most fossils are just casts, the scientist were ecstatic about the preservation of something more detailed than a cast, (which they called it ‘soft tissue’). And from that point on a leap to ‘unaltered soft tissue’ tissue has been made. No doubt because of the popularity of the movie Jurassic Park.

The media is famous for misleading people especially with science related matters, but that can't be used an excuse for the existence of dissent.

#8 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:22 PM

The misconception:

The ‘soft tissue’ is not some bone marrow like you get from your Sunday roast, no, it is preserved ‘soft tissue’ i.e. fossilised soft tissue.

That's correct, what was found according to Dr. Schweitzer,

A third vessel shows small microstructures either within or attached to the vessel wall. The structures are ovoid and possess an inner opaque core. They are completely consistent in size and shape with nucleated circulating blood cells taken from mature ostrich (D) and extant chicken


Posted Image

So far it has been reported that what has been recovered is organic material. She has said what has been found is intact dinosaurian tissue, there is no questioning that part of the discovery. Allegedly, there is a mechanism for preserving this material for such long time. That's what this whole thing is going to come down to, explaining how this material was preserved over the long ages. Everything else will be far less important. Dr. Hurd claimed in the TO essay that Dr. Weiland made three errors, which I find two of them to be superficial.

-Weiland says the find is "So obvious to the naked eye," and Dr. Hurd takes issue with that. That seems quite superficial and off point. The real issue is we have the capability to view it and reach conclusion.

-Weiland says the tissue is unfossilized. Granted he should not have said that.

Weiland says this find demonstrates that the previous ideas that these fossils lasted for long ages is not correct. I think this is a fair stance for Weiland. Considering that we now have two examples of biological material being preserved in 65 million year old fossils. He is supposedly incorrect because the dating methods will return the age despite the condition of the bones. Which of course begs the question, how do you know the dates being given are accurate. Except for a few errors in how he worded his article, claiming the material is completely unfossilized and fresh, he has not said anything outrageous.

The ‘soft tissue’ is still a fossil. Indeed there are far older examples than Tyrannosaurus Rex, from the same link: (my bole)

Nevertheless, this scenario is an uncommon which is what lead to the original skepticism that the T-Rex was as old as commonly held. Of course there is an explanation presented of how a mechanism could have preserved the tissue. However, the issue is not resolved yet and we should be open minded until everything is conclusive. This still begs the question of how you know how old something is based on various dating methods.

If anyone should be criticised it should be the media for not understanding the issue, i.e. most fossils are just casts, the scientist were ecstatic about the preservation of something more detailed than a cast, (which they called it ‘soft tissue’). And from that point on a leap to ‘unaltered soft tissue’ tissue has been made. No doubt because of the popularity of the movie Jurassic Park.

The media is famous for misleading people especially with science related matters, but that can't be used an excuse for the existence of dissent.

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 May 2006 - 07:35 PM

chance>
The misconception:

The ‘soft tissue’ is not some bone marrow like you get from your Sunday roast, no, it is preserved ‘soft tissue’ i.e. fossilised soft tissue.

Willis>
That's correct, what was found according to Dr. Schweitzer,

Quote Dr. Schweitzer>
A third vessel shows small microstructures either within or attached to the vessel wall. The structures are ovoid and possess an inner opaque core. They are completely consistent in size and shape with nucleated circulating blood cells taken from mature ostrich (D) and extant chicken


An exciting and new type of fossilisation find to shows such detail.


So far it has been reported that what has been recovered is organic material. She has said what has been found is intact dinosaurian tissue, there is no questioning that part of the discovery. Allegedly, there is a mechanism for preserving this material for such long time. That's what this whole thing is going to come down to, explaining how this material was preserved over the long ages. Everything else will be far less important. Dr. Hurd claimed in the TO essay that Dr. Weiland made three errors, which I find two of them to be superficial.


The ‘problem’ is in the it has been reported phrase and IMO is the root cause of the misconceptions surrounding this find. However your comments below deserve a reply but I am have a bit of difficulty in determining the quote from your comment so apologies in advance if I get it wrong.


-Weiland says the find is "So obvious to the naked eye,"

Willis>
and Dr. Hurd takes issue with that. That seems quite superficial and off point. The real issue is we have the capability to view it and reach conclusion.


I would be surprised if Weiland had access to the material to make such a statement, he would have been restricted to the same reports you and I have access to, and thus I think “obvious” is a rash statement.

-Weiland says the tissue is unfossilized.

Willis>
Granted he should not have said that.


Agreed.



Weiland says this find demonstrates that the previous ideas that these fossils lasted for long ages is not correct.

Willis>
I think this is a fair stance for Weiland. Considering that we now have two examples of biological material being preserved in 65 million year old fossils. He is supposedly incorrect because the dating methods will return the age despite the condition of the bones. Which of course begs the question, how do you know the dates being given are accurate. Except for a few errors in how he worded his article, claiming the material is completely unfossilized and fresh, he has not said anything outrageous.


I disagree. The new find implies that you need a large bone containing marrow and an set of unknown conditions. To imply anything else would require some sort of proof that the process is incompatible with long periods of time. As the ‘soft tissue’ is not actuality original material, the balance is tipped towards an unusual but not inconsistent fossilisation process.
The ‘outrageous’ part is only insomuch as Weiland inferring that dating of fossils is now incorrect because of this find.


chance>
The ‘soft tissue’ is still a fossil. Indeed there are far older examples than Tyrannosaurus Rex, from the same link:

Willis>
Nevertheless, this scenario is an uncommon which is what lead to the original skepticism that the T-Rex was as old as commonly held. Of course there is an explanation presented of how a mechanism could have preserved the tissue. However, the issue is not resolved yet and we should be open minded until everything is conclusive. This still begs the question of how you know how old something is based on various dating methods.


Indeed it is uncommon, but unless Weiland or others can show why this process could not possibly occur over time periods in the millions of years he is speculating wildly.

Prediction: When the method is understood it will be consistent with contemporary fossilisation processes. Time will tell.


chance>
If anyone should be criticised it should be the media for not understanding the issue, i.e. most fossils are just casts, the scientist were ecstatic about the preservation of something more detailed than a cast, (which they called it ‘soft tissue’). And from that point on a leap to ‘unaltered soft tissue’ tissue has been made. No doubt because of the popularity of the movie Jurassic Park.

Willis>
The media is famous for misleading people especially with science related matters, but that can't be used an excuse for the existence of dissent.


Agreed.

#10 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 May 2006 - 09:36 PM

I first wanted to say, chance I find my discussions with you have been quite pleasant. Most online discussions on this topic devolve into insult as a result my disbelief of evolution. So thank you for your civility.

Anyway,

The ‘problem’ is in the  it has been reported phrase and IMO is the root cause of the misconceptions surrounding this find. However your comments below deserve a reply but I am have a bit of difficulty in determining the quote from your comment so apologies in advance if I get it wrong.

I was careful to quote Dr. Schweitzer directly and keep her quotes in their proper context so to avoid any of these issues. I also used the BBC article you linked to, because Dr. Hurd seemed to think they did a better job of reporting the story.

I would be surprised if Weiland had access to the material to make such a statement, he would have been restricted to the same reports you and I have access to, and thus I think “obvious” is a rash statement.

For the sake of being completely honest he should not have used the phrase, "obvious to the naked eye," however, it is still a superficial point. I would rephrase it to say, "When the proper tools are used, it is quite obvious what is being viewed. Regardless of the statement the debate is not altered either way.

As the ‘soft tissue’ is not actuality original material, the balance is tipped towards an unusual but not inconsistent fossilisation

That may not be true according to Dr. Hurd,

Schweitzer et al notably offered no alternate explanation for their finding- they are entirely standing on the assertion that these are the original dinosaur tissues. Not until the last paragraph do they even comment that, "Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain."


As it stands it is quite possible this is original material, it just simply is not known whether this is the case or not. Even if it was shown to be replaced by a resin compound of sorts, as Dr. Hendrik Poinar suggested, we still must find out if this "mechanism" fits the necessary timeline.

The ‘outrageous’ part is only insomuch as Weiland inferring that dating of fossils is now incorrect because of this find.

If he is right this find lends credence to the idea that the dating methods are flawed to some degree. I believe, as you do, Dr. Wieland overstepped the available facts, but this could turn out to be bigger than both of us think.

Indeed it is uncommon, but unless Weiland or others can show why this process could not possibly occur over time periods in the millions of years he is speculating wildly. Prediction: When the method is understood it will be consistent with contemporary fossilisation processes. Time will tell.

It is indeed speculation, and maybe a little overblown, but excluding the errors we have discussed thus far I think his claim fits well within a young earth framework. As far as your prediction goes, we will see. If the time comes I will renounce the claim and not use it. However, I feel an explanation will be aranged that does not satisfy all questions.

#11 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 May 2006 - 09:46 PM

Chance, you wrote: “I would be surprised if Weiland had access to the material to make such a statement, he would have been restricted to the same reports you and I have access to, and thus I think “obvious” is a rash statement.”

Then you go and claim: “…the ‘soft tissue’ is not actuality original material”. How do you know? Apparently you have access to the material?

Here is what Chance is claiming is completely fossilized:

Posted Image

I hereby feel very safe to proudly and loudly declare that this is unfossilized material, and indeed as Wieland declared, it is "obvious to the naked eye"..

Chance hopes beyond hope otherwise. Even Schweitzer can't help but admit "It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything." [emphasis mine]. Chance quoted the subsequent paragraph where the BBC report trys to spin it essentially into "that's not really what she said, trust us". Oh yes it is. The BBC, like Chance, is trying desperately to spin this obvious problem for evolution into some wonderous fossilization process we don't understand yet!

Prediction: When the method is understood it will be consistent with contemporary fossilisation processes. Time will tell.


It's been over a year, Chance. Are these scientists that incompetent that they cannot come out with any kind of evidence that this is permineralized? Is not this easy to detect? Its either the real deal, or not.

See my signature below.

#12 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 May 2006 - 11:29 PM

Even Schweitzer can't help but admit "It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything." [emphasis mine].

View Post

Where did that quote come from? In all of the material posted I can't find that quote in particular?

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 May 2006 - 01:38 PM

I first wanted to say, chance I find my discussions with you have been quite pleasant. Most online discussions on this topic devolve into insult as a result my disbelief of evolution. So thank you for your civility.


Thanks. The sentiments are reciprocated.


chance>
I would be surprised if Weiland had access to the material to make such a statement, he would have been restricted to the same reports you and I have access to, and thus I think “obvious” is a rash statement.

Willis>
For the sake of being completely honest he should not have used the phrase, "obvious to the naked eye," however, it is still a superficial point. I would rephrase it to say, "When the proper tools are used, it is quite obvious what is being viewed. Regardless of the statement the debate is not altered either way.


Without re reading the article, I would agree with you if the phase in question was in context, but as the only criticism seems to be that “soft tissue” = young age, I am sceptical.


chance>
As the ‘soft tissue’ is not actuality original material, the balance is tipped towards an unusual but not inconsistent fossilisation

That may not be true according to Dr. Hurd,

QUOTE(Gary Hurd)
Schweitzer et al notably offered no alternate explanation for their finding- they are entirely standing on the assertion that these are the original dinosaur tissues. Not until the last paragraph do they even comment that, "Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain."


IMO typical scientific cautionary language, because the process is unknown. There is perhaps a remote possibility that original material is entirely encased and mummified (at a microscopic level). To say that something is impossible without being in full charge of the facts is rather a rash thing to do.


As it stands it is quite possible this is original material, it just simply is not known whether this is the case or not. Even if it was shown to be replaced by a resin compound of sorts, as Dr. Hendrik Poinar suggested, we still must find out if this "mechanism" fits the necessary timeline.


Agreed. I’m sure this is high on the “to do list”.


chance>
The ‘outrageous’ part is only insomuch as Weiland inferring that dating of fossils is now incorrect because of this find.

Willis>
If he is right this find lends credence to the idea that the dating methods are flawed to some degree. I believe, as you do, Dr. Wieland overstepped the available facts, but this could turn out to be bigger than both of us think.


Agreed.


chance>
Indeed it is uncommon, but unless Weiland or others can show why this process could not possibly occur over time periods in the millions of years he is speculating wildly. Prediction: When the method is understood it will be consistent with contemporary fossilisation processes. Time will tell.

Willis>
It is indeed speculation, and maybe a little overblown, but excluding the errors we have discussed thus far I think his claim fits well within a young earth framework. As far as your prediction goes, we will see. If the time comes I will renounce the claim and not use it. However, I feel an explanation will be aranged that does not satisfy all questions.


OK. A good compromise.

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 May 2006 - 02:15 PM

Chance, you wrote: “I would be surprised if Weiland had access to the material to make such a statement, he would have been restricted to the same reports you and I have access to, and thus I think “obvious” is a rash statement.”

Then you go and claim: “…the ‘soft tissue’ is not actuality original material”. How do you know? Apparently you have access to the material?


My opinions are entirely based on the internet reports I can find.

As I see it, only Dr Schweitzer is in a position to be certain of what is or is not “soft tissue” and what is meant by that phrase. We are all working either second hand (or worse) from those statements. Do you agree?

Here is what Chance is claiming is completely fossilized:

<snip pics>

I hereby feel very safe to proudly and loudly declare that this is unfossilized material, and indeed as Wieland declared, it is "obvious to the naked eye"..


It is an important and salient fact that, “things are not always what they seem”.

Are you so sure that the 2D magnified picture of a 3D object, reduced to some pixels compatible with your computer of unknown resolution and quality, is sufficient evidence to claim “it’s obvious to the naked eye”!


Chance hopes beyond hope otherwise. Even Schweitzer can't help but admit "It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything." [emphasis mine]. Chance quoted the subsequent paragraph where the BBC report trys to spin it essentially into "that's not really what she said, trust us". Oh yes it is. The BBC, like Chance, is trying desperately to spin this obvious problem for evolution into some wonderous fossilization process we don't understand yet!


Are you of the opinion that if a scientists (or anyone for that matter) uses a phrase poorly in public, you are justified in using that original phrase as some sort of proof?

How do you determine which claim to use? (paraphrased example below)

Scientist – “I have found soft tissue in the leg bone of Tyrannosaurus Rex”

Press – “soft tissue found in T’Rex fossil”

Scientist – “what I mean by ‘soft tissue’ is that the fossil contains fossilised soft tissue”

Press – Britney Spears is reported to have been seen with Tom Cruse last week, reports that she has broken up with her boy friend last week have ……… :)

Prediction: When the method is understood it will be consistent with contemporary fossilisation processes. Time will tell.


It's been over a year, Chance. Are these scientists that incompetent that they cannot come out with any kind of evidence that this is permineralized? Is not this easy to detect? Its either the real deal, or not.


I have not been following this issue so am not able to comment with certainty. But I don’t think being cautious with a single sample is justification for a claim of incompetence.

Perhaps and IMO likely, they are playing it safe because they only have one sample and are not willing to ‘cut’ into it yet. It would be a shame if they performed the wrong sort of tests and destroyed part of the sample.

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 May 2006 - 02:19 PM

P.S. I searched for articles re the “a Smithsonian article about Dr. Schweizter's T-Rex Bone/Blood-Cell discovery” so as to see what 92g meant by “Smithsonian, Engaging in Anit-Creationist Propaganda”. As yet I have not been successful in finding any articals connected with this issue.

Has anyone got the article in question?

#16 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 16 May 2006 - 09:09 PM

Without re reading the article, I would agree with you if the phase in question was in context, but as the only criticism seems to be that “soft tissue” = young age, I am sceptical.

We shall leave at that for now.

IMO typical scientific cautionary language, because the process is unknown. There is perhaps a remote possibility that original material is entirely encased and mummified (at a microscopic level). To say that something is impossible without being in full charge of the facts is rather a rash thing to do.

You asserted that it was not original material and that is not correct. It is quite possible this is original. We still need to understand the "mechanism" if there is anything new to learn that is.

#17 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 18 May 2006 - 03:59 PM

It's been over a year, Chance. Are these scientists that incompetent that they cannot come out with any kind of evidence that this is permineralized? Is not this easy to detect? Its either the real deal, or not.

I have not been following this issue so am not able to comment with certainty. But I don’t think being cautious with a single sample is justification for a claim of incompetence.


I actually did not mean to imply they are incompetent, in fact it was meant to use their competence and expertise in this area to emphasize the following - as experts in this area they should easily have an explanation by now. The reason they don’t is because it is original material. That’s what their expertise tells them. I just can’t imagine it is that hard to determine whether the soft tissue is the real deal, or permineralization or some other replacement.

As I see it, only Dr Schweitzer is in a position to be certain of what is or is not “soft tissue” and what is meant by that phrase. We are all working either second hand (or worse) from those statements. Do you agree?


Yes, we are both working with second hand info. I was just pointing out that you weren’t applying the same standard to yourself. You called our direct interpretation “rash” because it was based off second hand information, while you also made a direct interpretation from this same second hand info, an interpretation that was the precise opposite of ours.

Regardless, because something is second hand does not mean we cannot make a reasonable deduction. Virtually every find in science comes to us “second hand”. I’ve never seen originals (or even replicas) of most of the famous fossils (ie Lucy, Pakicetus, etc), but we can reach very reasonable conclusions based on the evidence presented to us. For example, I can rightly conclude that statues of Lucy in some of our museums that show human-shaped feet is wrong (and deceptive) based on the published photos of the actual fossils found and the accompanying evidence that has been accumulated over the years on this animal.

In regard to the T-Rex find, I can look at the photos and accompanying testimony on the evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion that the fossil is not fully permineralized, that it indeed has original material. While I am not a paleontologist, I’ve seen plenty of fossils in my life and I’ve never seen a single example of a fossil that is even remotely close to showing the distinct colorization and detail as seen in the above photos. Nor have I ever seen full permineralization be sufficient to produce some imitation compound that shows flexibility reamrkably similar to the real thing, as was noted with the blood vessels.

So, to answer your next question…

Are you so sure that the 2D magnified picture of a 3D object, reduced to some pixels compatible with your computer of unknown resolution and quality, is sufficient evidence to claim “it’s obvious to the naked eye”!


Yes, I am thoroughly convinced, and I am willing to entertain anyone who is willing to make a wager on it! Would you be prepared to make that bet?

The reason evolutionists want desperately to explain this one away is because it clearly contradicts a part of their worldview, but you can bet they would not put money on it because they know they are at great risk to lose! If this were the bone of a Mammoth, then evolutionists would right away agree it contains original soft tissue (evos believe they went extinct only 10K years ago or so). But since it’s the bone a T-Rex that was supposed to have gone extinct some 65 million years ago, then the spin & deny machine comes out in full force, despite the clear evidence staring them right in the face.

I predict that eventually enough evolutionists will be so embarrassed by this obvious and clear evidence for a recent dinosaur, that they will fall back to the “living fossil” card in their grab bag and admit some survived in some as-yet-to-be-unexplained niche. It’s the theory that has a grab bag answer for every problem! (which removes it from the category of theory) :)

Fred

#18 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 18 May 2006 - 04:03 PM

Where did that quote come from? In all of the material posted I can't find that quote in particular?

View Post


In the BBC link chance posted in post #6.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/4379577.stm

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 May 2006 - 09:10 PM

I actually did not mean to imply they are incompetent, in fact it was meant to use their competence and expertise in this area to emphasize the following - as experts in this area they should easily have an explanation by now. The reason they don’t is because it is original material. That’s what their expertise tells them. I just can’t imagine it is that hard to determine whether the soft tissue is the real deal, or permineralization or some other replacement.


Not unreasonable and I somewhat agree with you, but perhaps there are other priorities or restraints that we are not aware of.


chance>
As I see it, only Dr Schweitzer is in a position to be certain of what is or is not “soft tissue” and what is meant by that phrase. We are all working either second hand (or worse) from those statements. Do you agree?

Fred Wiliams>
Yes, we are both working with second hand info. I was just pointing out that you weren’t applying the same standard to yourself. You called our direct interpretation “rash” because it was based off second hand information, while you also made a direct interpretation from this same second hand info, an interpretation that was the precise opposite of ours.


I see your point. The critical thing as I see it is, where shall the “final word” or the “authoritative opinion” come from (especially when it relates to who said what)?

e.g. If was as simple position like:

“I think this it’s an apple”,

“I think this is an orange”.

then the protagonists are more or less on an equal footing.



But the situation we have been discussing is more like this:

“This looks like an apple”,

“It is an apple”,

“No, I said it looks like an apple.” “It’s most likely an orange, perhaps with micro bits of apple in it …….. may be”.


Ok, oversimplified humorous, analogies notwithstanding, IMO if the author clarifies a point later on, then the wording of the original statements should be interpreted in light of that clarification, it is poor form not to acknowledge that clarification.



Regardless, because something is second hand does not mean we cannot make a reasonable deduction. Virtually every find in science comes to us “second hand”. I’ve never seen originals (or even replicas) of most of the famous fossils (ie Lucy, Pakicetus, etc), but we can reach very reasonable conclusions based on the evidence presented to us. For example, I can rightly conclude that statues of Lucy in some of our museums that show human-shaped feet is wrong (and deceptive) based on the published photos of the actual fossils found and the accompanying evidence that has been accumulated over the years on this animal.

(my bold)

hmmmmmm. I’m not sure I agree with this when it is applicable to science. The scientific process is (simplified):

a. Discovery,
b. devise theory,
c. test theory,
d. publish.

All the “deduction” has been done on our behalf by the scientist during phases ‘b’, and ‘c’. You and I can merely agree or disagree with that deduction. Unless we are prepared to do some research ourselves, we are just background noise.



In regard to the T-Rex find, I can look at the photos and accompanying testimony on the evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion that the fossil is not fully permineralized, that it indeed has original material. While I am not a paleontologist, I’ve seen plenty of fossils in my life and I’ve never seen a single example of a fossil that is even remotely close to showing the distinct colorization and detail as seen in the above photos. Nor have I ever seen full permineralization be sufficient to produce some imitation compound that shows flexibility reamrkably similar to the real thing, as was noted with the blood vessels.


You may be right, but equally you may be very wrong. Your previous experience with fossils may not be applicable to this specific find. When something new is encountered, one should entertain the possibility that something different has happened.




Fred Williams>
So, to answer your next question…

Chance>
Are you so sure that the 2D magnified picture of a 3D object, reduced to some pixels compatible with your computer of unknown resolution and quality, is sufficient evidence to claim “it’s obvious to the naked eye”!

Fred Williams>
Yes, I am thoroughly convinced, and I am willing to entertain anyone who is willing to make a wager on it! Would you be prepared to make that bet?


Yes, what are your conditions, and what is your claim.

My position is mirrored by the wiki article below:

When the fossilized bone was treated over several weeks to remove mineral content from the fossilized bone marrow cavity (a process called demineralization), Schweitzer found evidence of intact structures such as blood vessels, bone matrix, and connective tissue (bone fibers). Scrutiny under the microscope further revealed that the putative dinosaur soft tissue had retained fine structures (microstructures) even at the cellular level. The exact nature and composition of this material are not yet clear, although many news reports immediately linked it with the movie Jurassic Park. Interpretation of the artefact is ongoing, and the relative importance of Dr. Schweitzer's discovery is not yet clear.


To clarify my position - whatever the preservation process is, the ‘soft tissue’ will not contradict existing old earth models, i.e. the material is not ‘fresh’ (6000, to 10000 years old).


The reason evolutionists want desperately to explain this one away is because it clearly contradicts a part of their worldview, but you can bet they would not put money on it because they know they are at great risk to lose! If this were the bone of a Mammoth, then evolutionists would right away agree it contains original soft tissue (evos believe they went extinct only 10K years ago or so). But since it’s the bone a T-Rex that was supposed to have gone extinct some 65 million years ago, then the spin & deny machine comes out in full force, despite the clear evidence staring them right in the face.


It would contradict our world view if the material turns out to be something less than 65myo.

Is the “put money on it” one of the conditions of your wager challenge to me? Personally I will be content with a simple acknowledgment on this forum if you are shown to be in error.

What ‘spin’ has come from the side of science? Do you consider a clarification on a statement as ‘spin’?

I predict that eventually enough evolutionists will be so embarrassed by this obvious and clear evidence for a recent dinosaur, that they will fall back to the “living fossil” card in their grab bag and admit some survived in some as-yet-to-be-unexplained niche. It’s the theory that has a grab bag answer for every problem! (which removes it from the category of theory)


I predict that the explanation will be a unique form of preservation/fossilisation, and that the “living fossil” (I presume you mean something like the coelacanth) will not even be put forward.

#20 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 19 May 2006 - 06:34 PM

Hey, chance, if this find is genuine where does the evolutionary timeline stand?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users