11
   

More (much more) dinosaur soft tissue turning up

 
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2014 03:59 pm
What really surprises me is how its only in the last few years that anyone even thought it was possible for soft tissue to fossilize. Great thread!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2014 04:44 pm
We all know that Lord kelvin had his science a bit skewed, so "quote mining" him int a big deal.
The vast amount of quote mining is practiced by you "Creationists" because you don't have ANY evidence to support your worldview>This requires you to do the only thing you are able, that is to try to discredit science.

SO you do a radio show on creationism? I used to watch the Cornersrtone TV network out of Pittsburgh with its outrageously funny "Creation science " claims. The way they made it entertaining was to post lots of graphics showing how the Bible actually mentions ALL the aspects of geology and biology that they felt were relevant. It was hilarious.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2014 04:54 pm
So you have any radio clips about Neil Shubin's book and PBS special on "Your Inner Fish"?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2014 11:05 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
That's about what Mary Schweitzer said about this tissue. She's still embroiled in a techy argument as to whether its really soft tissue or a framboid. Still, even if it is real, its a new form of "fossilization" because the date of the sediment in which the bones li are dated with accuracy(They've dated the super and the sub layers of tephra or volcanic ash. These layers bind the bones to somewhere in between 70 and 71 million years. The "soft tissue" if a real thing, would be no more remarkeable as a type of fossilization than are
Saponified tissue
amber
carboniferous waxes
fossil keratin
pyritized and opalized fossil casts

The interesting thing that the Creationists are causing themselves trubbles is that Mary Schweitzer is a religious person .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 03:30 am
Ah yes, the then William Thomson, later Lord Kelvin, who joined Thomas Edison in asserting the dangers of alternating current, which would have meant electrical generation stations every few miles. Of course, Edison had a financial stake in using direct current rather than alternating current, but i guess we don't expect scientists to be worldly. When George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla began generating alternating current and successfully selling it, that kind of put an end to Thomson's forays into that arena of science.

Scientists are not supernatural oracles, and their musings and the claims are not holy writ. Intelligent people don't treat the pronouncments of putative authorities as though they were inerrant, divinely inspired scripture. I don't care what silly allegations you make about someone quoting William Thomson, a.k.a. "Lord Kelvin." If you're wrong, and in this case i mean you personally, neither appeals to authority, nor tu quoque fallacies are going to salvage your credibility.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 10:35 am
@Setanta,
I think hes a "hit and run" master debator for his worldview. He has his radio audience to consider and he surely cant afford to get tussied up.
He was here to post his "website" bullshit and , like gunga, he then runs away.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 10:50 am
@farmerman,
We have to give Kelvin some slack because he took it on his own to use his limited knowledge to calculate the age of the earth. (Geologists of his day thought the earths age was infinite).
He came up with a number of between 20 and 100 million yers based on his newfound principles of tthermodynamics. He was wrong but for th right reasons. He didn't know squat about radioactivity or polar migration, the "dynamo concept" or radioactivity. So he came up with a number . Tht alone should be remembered as a good first step.
Course Im sorta paraphrasing from"Brilliant Blunders". SO Kelsvin was right in stating that mathematical calculTIONS ARE our friend. He was just wrong in having ot included some other variables into his calcs.

We give Kelvin a bad rap for this (as well as his "fascination" with DC current)
EVen here, we now are experimenting with "hybrid" current for the grid. Wrong for the right reasons
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 12:11 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
He didn't know squat about radioactivity...



As I've mentioned several times, Bob Bass once redid Lord Kelvin's equations WITH a maximal possible figure for radioactive elements included and came up with an upper bound of around 200M years.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 12:15 pm
What we're seeing is a big picture view in which several elements all point to the same conclusion:

  • Soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains.
  • Blind radiocarbon tests for dinosaur remains showing ages in the 20K - 40K year range.
  • Good representations of known dinosaur types turning up in native American petroglyphs at numerous North American sites.


Interestingly, in the Internet age, the Smithsonian thought police and others of their ilk can no longer hide or disappear this kind of evidence.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 12:27 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
•Blind radiocarbon tests
"Blind is right". Like the Shroud of Turin fiasco, most of the C14 samples were contamination . You will never understand gunga, I think even your creationist friends will tell you to back off here you cant win.

Quote:
•Soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains
The enclosing rocks of which date consistently between 70 and 120 million years (depending upon the fossil and its stratigraphic level)

Quote:
•Good representations of known dinosaur types turning up in native American petroglyphs at numerous North American sites.
even the American Indians have tried to explain this to you. Someone makes One petroglyph of
the"river cat" and you claim that as proof of existence of an entire
class of organisms. Even the Creationists aint that dumb.

   https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnm_1DTffzMXMohJXt3hfyepjdXTqMWcNsuIF9id90yC-LCttP                                      This one is a fake that was outed based upon some forensics. (Proof positive that, like Paaluxy River) Creationists will stoop at nothing , and will lie quicker than give theor names, in order to try to con their audiences.

Now tell us about the Flood.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 03:17 pm
@farmerman,
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnm_1DTffzMXMohJXt3hfyepjdXTqMWcNsuIF9id90yC-LCttP

That one is not a fake. The claim the fossil thumpers were trying to make did not involve forensics, they were claiming that the image was of a snake and that somehow or other something resembling legs had seeped into the image underneath the thing's body over the years.

Here's the (stupid) claim:

http://www.icr.org/article/utah-dinosaur-petroglyph-disputed/

http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/news/cole_sketch.jpg

Problem is, no snake in the history of the world has ever coiled himself into such an alignment.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 04:19 pm
@gungasnake,
The one Id seen was referring to the fact that the "Apatosaurus" was actually placed Over actual petroglyphs an was not of the earlier age but was fairly recent because there was no signs of any erosion like of the earlier petroglyph.
STILL, where are all these dinosaurs that you claim were drawn "en plein aire"? They left no traces in fossil beds from late K until these "petroglyphs appear" So there were no fossils of any in the Paleocene Formmations,Eocene Formations, Miocene Formations,Pleiocene Formations, and the glacial deposits f the Pleistocene, and the following Holocene beds. All those formations in the world are devoid of fossil dinosaurs yet heres some Native americans petroglyphs (and a few disputed Ika STones) you claim to show dinosaurs (The IKA stones show a Tyrannosaur in South America-yet I dont believe that there were any tyrannosaur fossils found in the SOuthern Hemisphere of the Americas)> and the Giganotosaurus was different looking from what the IKA stone shows, (IMHO).
Were these dinosaurs just hiding out and carefully avoiding getting fossilized?
farmerman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2014 04:30 pm
@farmerman,
Heres Potawotami weaving of the Mishipeshu , the "water cat" that you claim , from a petroglyph , is a stegosaurus. If you search the arts nd crafts of the LAke Tribes, you will find this beast in legend and art forms (including a single Ojibwe petroglyph) and it looks strikingly similar in all the cultures. ITS NOT A STEGOSAURUS

  http://www.humansandnature.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Potawatomi-bag-ca_-1840-1880.jpg
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 06:17 am
@farmerman,
More than just one petroglyph. Again, Vine Deloria noted that native American oral traditions describe the "water panther" as having a saw-blade back and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon, i.e. as a stegosaur ("Red Earth, White Lies"). Louis and Clark described their native guides as being in mortal terror at the sight of such glyphs and, aside from the one representational petroglyph at Agawa Rock, there are others which are basically stick figures, but even those show the characteristic dorsal spikes of the dinosaur.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 06:33 am
@gungasnake,
yet all of the arts and crafts depict a much more familiar animal with "horns" more like a cow. How does that resemble a stegosaur. (And where is its fossil in the Holocene?)
By the same token you can say that ocean "dragons" are based upon dinosaurs and that these were alive in the age of sail.

Vine Deloria wasn't a competent source of anything. His son(A real ethnologist) even makes apologies for him.



farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 06:48 am
@farmerman,
Heres another version of a Mishipeshu on a Potawanami shield . Could it be that the power of legend and myth often predesigns the "real life" possibilities of these creatures? Sorta like dragons to our seamen or the Yeti to the Sherpas. (Or Noah's ARK?)

   https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdcAXhqMtEXhs5GIXdfTtyv3-QKda_ZvzkaB2FsgCGhf4srxzT
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 07:21 am
@farmerman,
Indians always touched those glyphs up every decade or two. The horns were added at a much later date.

No North American creature other than the stegosaur ever had a "great spiked tail"

http://ottawariverkeeper.ca/river/ottawa_river_creatures_real_or_imagined_the_story_of_mishipashoo/

http://www.mazinawlakesideresort.com/#!mazinaw-lake-monster

Quote:
The Indigenous native name for the creature is Mishipashoo. Legends say that a water spirit inhabits Mazinaw Lake. The natives would offer tobacco to this spirit before embarking on a journey across such waters. The tobacco was offered with a prayer to appease this spirit with the hope that it would not whip up its great spiked tail and tip their canoe.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 09:36 am
@gungasnake,
youre spewing compost again gunga.

The GLYPTODON was a mammal of the Pleistocene that had a spiky tail. (This could be a base of a myth).
STill, cmon, wheres the REAL evidence???

You say its ok to doctor up the drawing and that is real evience?

Youre barking.

READ THIS ABOUT THE GLYPTODON
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 09:55 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
No North American creature other than the stegosaur ever had a "great spiked tail"
Stegosaurs were no water dwelling animals. Their bulk almost precuded them access to deeper waters. They would float like a rhino in a river.

All you "evidence" states that the Mishipeshu was a water creature, some even said it was a sturgeon. I can understand your insistnace on a stegosaur, it makes your Creationist claims seem less outrageous. BUT,so far, weve seen nothing other than some cartoons, arts n crafts, and some legends.
ANYWAY, the stegosaur was a lnd dwelling herbivore and its fossils were found in groups (like hadrosaurians) and all were found in a small geologic range (They were gone in the K terminal events). The Great lakes have really good Cenozoic and "anthropocene" deposits, and guess what? NO DINOSAURS AT ALL, Instead , weve got ample fossils of things like elephants, bison, short faced bears, dire wolves, camels, horses and others. ALL MAMMALS and modern fishes turtles etc. NO DINOSAURS, Did I say that THERE WERE NO DINOSAUR FOSSILS?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 02:18 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Stegosaurs were no water dwelling animals....


That's right. It turns out however that the large dinosaurs would be crushed by their own weight in our present world which is why we no longer have such animals. Most dinosaurs died out in catastrophes of one sort or other, but the thing which guaranteed that none of them survived was the change in gravity.

After the change, the stegosaur attempted to move into aquatic environments (and thus deal with his greater weight) but, having no real adaptations for an aquatic life, he did not survive for very much longer.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 12:45:16