Dinosaur soft tissue find
-
Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”
http://www.howtogotoheaven.netfirms.com/dinosaur_tissue.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
Have a good read and increase your general knowledge.
Cheers -
-
-
Originally posted by happyharvest:
Thanks for the shared knowledge.
[b]Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”
http://www.howtogotoheaven.netfirms.com/dinosaur_tissue.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
Have a good read and increase your general knowledge.
Cheers[/b]
Could you explain what you meant by 'a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”'?
What is your stand/belief of this planet?
Cheers -
So what does this mean? Someone is cloning dinosaurs?
-
That is the title of this website http://www.howtogotoheaven.netfirms.com/dinosaur_tissue.htm.Originally posted by M©+square:Thanks for the shared knowledge.
Could you explain what you meant by 'a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”'?
What is your stand/belief of this planet?
Cheers
My stand huh... I would lean towards a young planet theory. Still keeping an open mind. What about you?
Cheers -
Re-read the articles. No, not cloning.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:So what does this mean? Someone is cloning dinosaurs?
Cheers -
Ok. Let me get this clear so that we have a common understanding of where this(topic) is going to.Originally posted by happyharvest:That is the title of this website http://www.howtogotoheaven.netfirms.com/dinosaur_tissue.htm.
My stand huh... I would lend towards a young planet. Still keeping an open mind.
Is this topic going to involve the scriptures?
Or it's just going to be a discussion of old vs young planet?
You're saying that the website or this findings have the rebuttals of millions year old Earth.
I'm interested to find out how did the website or the findings prove that this planet is a young planet. Speculations? Yes i believe it is still speculations.
extracted from the website:
I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.
____
I stood back...and thought....
If it is true(Earth is a few thousand years old planet). Then the great mystery might be solved...or be more complicated.
Cheers -
I just present the latest findings here. If you are interested, keep watching lo. They are still researching. The msnbc reported it while some people jump to conclusion that this may be proof of a young earth.Originally posted by M©+square:Ok. Let me get this clear so that we have a common understanding of where this(topic) is going to.
Is this topic going to involve the scriptures?
Or it's just going to be a discussion of old vs young planet?
You're saying that the website or this findings have the rebuttals of millions year old Earth.
I'm interested to find out how did the website or the findings prove that this planet is a young planet. Speculations? Yes i believe it is still speculations.
extracted from the website:
I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.
____
I stood back...and thought....
If it is true(Earth is a few thousand years old planet). Then the great mystery might be solved...or be more complicated.
Cheers
Anyway, what is your stand/belief of this planet?
Ya, perhaps this is a speculation. Whatever it is, it is a good scientific read. Did I post at the wrong forum?
Cheers -
Are you seriously desperate?
-
hmm..i thought it is just to confirm the foolish errors of the "scientific" theories of evolution which is an anti-thesis to Creation etc.
-
actually there are lots of such books and seminars
i remembered attending WEFC in S'pore .. they had a talk on debunking the evolutionary theory. a lot of stunning evidence. and the dinosaur blood tissue thing was also presented there. i attended the seminar 3 yrs ago.. they also have a magazine. creation magazine if i remember correctly.
anyway.. there was this professor... he went abt explaining why evolution is not possible.. the missing links, etc
it was quite interesting. though i am not entirely convinced -
the professor is an idiotOriginally posted by ben1xy:actually there are lots of such books and seminars
i remembered attending WEFC in S'pore .. they had a talk on debunking the evolutionary theory. a lot of stunning evidence. and the dinosaur blood tissue thing was also presented there. i attended the seminar 3 yrs ago.. they also have a magazine. creation magazine if i remember correctly.
anyway.. there was this professor... he went abt explaining why evolution is not possible.. the missing links, etc
it was quite interesting. though i am not entirely convinced -
Didn't the scientists already said "70-million-year-old"?
BTW so what are you trying to say? The world is not older than 6000 years? -
According to the first website I posted, they said that these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure. They are trying to say that how come a 70-million year tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are still flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape. I think they are trying to say that the scientists could be wrong. If I'm not wrong the Paleontologists are re-looking into the matter and they are hoping museums around the world would start cracking open bones and looking for soft tissue in their fossils.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Didn't the scientists already said "70-million-year-old"?
BTW so what are you trying to say? The world is not older than 6000 years?
Extracted from msnbc site:The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said.
and"Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before." Feathers, hair and fossilized egg contents yes, but not truly soft tissue.
The scientists may not always be right, right? Keep an open mind. These websites I posted just served as a good read of what is happening in the world and what some people think of it.
Regards -
Originally posted by happyharvest:
Maybe they will start cloning dinosaurs like in Jurassic Park movie & then u have disaster! We just cant meddle with cloning no matter how smart we are. Even our present techniques are very imperfect. I thank God that America at least banned cloning embryos. Am i right? Pls confirm. Tks.
[b]Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”
http://www.howtogotoheaven.netfirms.com/dinosaur_tissue.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
Have a good read and increase your general knowledge.
Cheers[/b] -
the scientists may not be right.. but its often others that assume they must be wrong.
-
yeapOriginally posted by Ito_^:the scientists may not be right.. but its often others that assume they must be wrong.
See, unlike a religion, one thing i like about science is that you can debunk the old theory if its found not fitting, or to provide qualificatons for certain things to happen
just like what Copernicus and Galileo do to 'flat earth theory' or 'the sun orbit around the earth' theory, or what Einstein do to Newton, scientists, for those who arent egoistic, the spirit of science to move on with time
Its not things doesnt change in a religion, but sometimes things get so dogmatic, or held onto tightly, the only changes cannot come from changing the original doctrines, but by resisting it, or leaving
like what protestants had done, or what charismatic churches doing to mainstream churches.. -
haiz .. sometimes we have to adapt lah.Originally posted by laurence82:Its not things doesnt change in a religion, but sometimes things get so dogmatic, or held onto tightly, the only changes cannot come from changing the original doctrines, but by resisting it, or leaving
like what protestants had done, or what charismatic churches doing to mainstream churches..
like the story I tell countless time .. the Jews used to observe Sabbath so strictly until one time the Romans invaded their place while they were having Sabbath.
-
are the the sources credible in the first place ? there are a lot of hoaxs and rubbish in the net.Originally posted by happyharvest:The scientists may not always be right, right? Keep an open mind. These websites I posted just served as a good read of what is happening in the world and what some people think of it.
Regards
" ....blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur ... "
if that is so, that would be the most stunning discovery of the centuary and will be reported in all major papers around the world.
increase general knowledge ? quoteing these kind of sources to discredit evolution theory is just so stupid. -
You are crazy. Next time don't surf the net ...Originally posted by crazy monkey:are the the sources credible in the first place ? there are a lot of hoaxs and rubbish in the net.
" ....blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur ... "
if that is so, that would be the most stunning discovery of the centuary and will be reported in all major papers around the world.
increase general knowledge ? quoteing these kind of sources to discredit evolution theory is just so stupid. -
But does the doctrine change?Changed by who if there is? Humans? And what are the explainations?Originally posted by Icemoon:haiz .. sometimes we have to adapt lah.
like the story I tell countless time .. the Jews used to observe Sabbath so strictly until one time the Romans invaded their place while they were having Sabbath.
key questions to ask... -
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June 1997
Evolution
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer*, Mark Marshalldagger , Keith CarronDagger , D. Scott BohleDagger , Scott C. Busse§, Ernst V. ArnoldDagger , Darlene Barnarddagger , J. R. Horner*, and Jean R. Starkey¶
i think this is the proper article.. its from an academic source
not much of a science person... i gave up reading after the 1st paragraph.
anybody wants to have a go at it and summarise?
lol -
thks! hahaa.. real bad at these things
anyway... had a go at it yet laurence?