Big Chicken with Sharp Teeth

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Researchers in 2005 broke a tyrannosaur bone in half to get it on a small helicopter which was all they had available and found soft tissue inside the bone including what looked like raw meat, blood vessels, and blood. More recently, collagen and proteins from this bone have been sequenced and turnout to be altogether similar to those of chickens. The tyrannosaur apparently was basically just a big chicken with sharp teeth. It would almost certainly taste like chicken.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/2007/april/065.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277

http://pharyngula.org/images/trex_vessel.jpg

This one almost has to be the final coffin nail for evolution(ism). Creationists had been talking about soft tissue in dino bones for years and now you have the story in mainstream journals. They're just stalling for time until they can devise some new anti-Christine belief system before they pull the plug. It would have to have never rained in Montana and the Dakotas for millions of yeas for that bone not to be totally petrified.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,162 • Replies: 13

No top replies

Dinosaurs were ancestors of birds you mammoth imbecile. There's nothing spectacular here, except the demonstration of your massive ignorance and incredible stupidity. The only time I question evolution is when confronted with halfwits like you, because it does seem incongruous that you could be the end result of two million odd years of human development.

0 Replies

BTW, are you ever going to provide some evidence for creationism, or are you going to continue to blow smoke up everyone's arse?

0 Replies

HOW DOES THAT DISPROVE EVOLUTION? i seriously want to know.

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

HOW DOES THAT DISPROVE EVOLUTION? i seriously want to know.

Having dinosaurs walking around five or ten or fifteen thousand years ago does not leave time for evolution.

0 Replies

I see it is time for gunga to trot out his "this disproves evolution" crap again while completely ignoring how his premise has been shown to be false on numerous occasions.

From one of Gunga's links

Quote:

We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization.

From another

Quote:

The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.

The "soft tissue" had to be demineralized to make it soft. That pretty much destroys your argument Gunga.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I see it is time for gunga to trot out his "this disproves evolution" crap again while completely ignoring how his premise has been shown to be false on numerous occasions.

From one of Gunga's links

Quote:
We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization.

From another

Quote:
The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.

The "soft tissue" had to be demineralized to make it soft. That pretty much destroys your argument Gunga.

He's been so horribly brainwashed that he's stuck with his cosmic Jewish zombie.

0 Replies

Even one million years and that bone would be totally petrified. You can't demineralize rocks and get meat and proteins out of them.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Even one million years and that bone would be totally petrified.

On what science do you base this statement? Please provide your source.

Quote:

You can't demineralize rocks and get meat and proteins out of them.

What kind of rock do you think fossils are? What process makes them hard? Until you determine the speed with which things mineralize your statement is nothing but gungaspeak.

0 Replies

THATS BECAUSE ROCKS ARENT FOSSILS, JUST WILD GUESS...

0 Replies

ANYTHING which is petrified is basically a rock. That's what rocks ARE, i.e. agglomerations of minerals.

Look up the derivation of the word 'petrified'....

0 Replies

Petrified? No, but you are a little scarey.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Even one million years and that bone would be totally petrified.

On what science do you base this statement? Please provide your source.

Nah, you didn't provide any science yet..

Things that aren't petrified are NOT rocks then? Gee.. so since it wasn't petrified it is entirely possible to demineralize it. There you go Gunga, you just revealed your circular argument without any science to support it.

0 Replies

Another "idiot" checking in. Completely agree with Parados.

parados wrote:

I see it is time for gunga to trot out his "this disproves evolution" crap again while completely ignoring how his premise has been shown to be false on numerous occasions.

From one of Gunga's links

Quote:
We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization.

From another

Quote:
The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.

The "soft tissue" had to be demineralized to make it soft. That pretty much destroys your argument Gunga.

0 Replies

Big Chicken with Sharp Teeth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know