Author Topic: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs (Read 1895 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** December 15, 2022, 12:12:31 AM »

https://kgov.com/pji-brad-dacus-triceratops-tissue

Scientist was fired for publishing his findings ... and then won a half million dollar wrongful terminations suit.

Here is a guy who consulted on Jurassic Park movies. He was offered $20,000 by this "Creationist" group to run a Carbon-14 test on some T. Rex soft tissue they had found, and he admits that it's because he does not want to give the Creationists ammunition.

https://kgov.com/pji-brad-dacus-triceratops-tissue

This group here claims to have an answer, that it was due to iron ... and they managed to keep some blood vessels reasonably preserved with a certain technique for TWO YEARS. Now we're just about 298,999,998 years short.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 15, 2022, 12:28:39 AM »

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fvDCWemv6VXP/

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** December 15, 2022, 12:29:27 AM »

cassini · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2022, 05:45:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2022, 12:28:39 AM

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fvDCWemv6VXP/

Wow Ladislaus, I never knew that. I thought those skeletons were actually found together. It seems they are man-made skeletons. I knew that the bones all contained C14 that makes them less than 30,000 years old.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2022, 07:36:36 AM »

Quote from: cassini on December 15, 2022, 05:45:35 AM

Wow Ladislaus, I never knew that. I thought those skeletons were actually found together. It seems they are man-made skeletons. I knew that the bones all contained C14 that makes them less than 30,000 years old.

Yes, that's why I posted this. I was unaware of how fraudulent the entire "dinosaur" field was. I knew they faked the dating, but I didn't realize ...

1) there were very few actual dinosaur bones that have been found (I had the impression that they had 10s of thousands)
2) no complete (or even close to complete) bone sets (so nearly all of it is reconstructed)
3) non-specialists have no access to the actual bones

Apparently most dinosaur paleontology is in the "Piltdown Man" category.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #5 on:** December 15, 2022, 11:53:51 AM »

I think the "dinosaurs' bones that are erected in museums were made from chicken bones and glue in China ( The Chinese are quite talented!)
The only quasi dinosaurs that existed are the wooly mammoth and another which I forget that were in existence just 5000 years ago.

shimano · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2022, 12:26:39 PM »

Tricerotops was a bad *ss. He minded his own business and ate plants, but, boy, was he tough. When T-Rex ambushed him, Tricerotops would, many times, kill T-Rex. Every confrontation between Tricertops and T-Rex was a gruesome battle, and Tricertops would make T-Rex suffer horribly for attacking him. Tricerotops was a robust creature. It was extremely difficult to take him down. He speared T-Rex and other predators with his huge horn and his strength and power were unmatched. His protective cranial structure made him tough, too.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2022, 12:39:30 PM »

Quote from: shimano on December 16, 2022, 12:26:39 PM

Tricerotops was a bad *ss. He minded his own business and ate plants, but, boy, was he tough. When T-Rex ambushed him, Tricerotops would, many times, kill T-Rex. Every confrontation between Tricertops and T-Rex was a gruesome battle, and Tricertops would make T-Rex suffer horribly for attacking him. Tricerotops was a robust creature. It was extremely difficult to take him down. He speared T-Rex and other predators with his huge horn and his strength and power were unmatched. His protective cranial structure made him tough, too.

Wow, it must have been incredible to see such battles. I guess it's the classic "you had to be there to really appreciate it".
I'm glad you got to experience it at least.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2022, 12:41:46 PM »

Finding soft tissue in fossils is "check and mate" for the millions of years nonsense. There is NO WAY proteins could last that long. I don't care how you preserve them.

Those millions of years that allow something to design itself? Those untold eons that boggle the mind, causing it to shut down and believe that ANYTHING is possible? That sword cuts both ways. It also guarantees you'll have NO such proteins. hahaha.

Hoisted on their own petard. Condemned by their own nonsense.

Marius · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2022, 01:06:59 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 16, 2022, 12:41:46 PM

Finding soft tissue in fossils is "check and mate" for the millions of years nonsense. There is NO WAY proteins could last that long. I don't care how you preserve them.

Those millions of years that allow something to design itself? Those untold eons that boggle the mind, causing it to shut down and believe that ANYTHING is possible? That sword cuts both ways. It also guarantees you'll have NO such proteins. hahaha.

Hoisted on their own petard. Condemned by their own nonsense.

Sadly the damage has been done, similar to the falsehoods and hoaxes related to Evolution theories. How many generations have taken these various "scientific" narratives as fact, thereby sowing serious doubt in their belief in Scripture and Christian doctrines more generally? We don''t have the ability to reliably date much beyond a few centuries yet these ever-changing grand theories of millions and billions of years are constructed as dogmatic facts.

It's rather pathetic how so many over the past couple centuries especially have placed an unquestioning belief in pseudo-scientific fantasies over the traditional Faith. Anti-Christians propose a novel theory contrary to the Church Fathers and Scripture? Great, let's enthusiastically go along and contort our beliefs to fit theirs until we no longer believe and their theories are revealed to be the made-up nonsense they always were.

cassini · « **Reply #10 on:** December 16, 2022, 03:18:47 PM »

Quote from: Marius on December 16, 2022, 01:06:59 PM

Sadly the damage has been done, similar to the falsehoods and hoaxes related to Evolution theories. How many generations have taken these various "scientific" narratives as fact, thereby sowing serious doubt in their belief in Scripture and Christian doctrines more generally? We don''t have the ability to reliably date much beyond a few centuries yet these ever-changing grand theories of millions and billions of years are constructed as dogmatic facts.

It's rather pathetic how so many over the past couple centuries especially have placed an unquestioning belief in pseudo-scientific fantasies over the traditional Faith. Anti-Christians propose a novel theory contrary to the Church Fathers and Scripture? Great, let's enthusiastically go along and contort our beliefs to fit theirs until we no longer believe and their theories are revealed to be the made-up nonsense they always were.

Trouble is we were all educated to believe evolution and dinosaurs were true. I know I was. However, my late wife, who was a geocentric creationist since she was able to think (I used to consider her not as well educated as I was) knew an American Tom McFadden who gave her a creationist book to give me. It took me about 30 minutes to see I had been educated an idiot and began to write an essay to warn fellow Catholics of the fraud. Then this happened

On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II, reflecting on Pius XII’s ‘observation’ on evolution and Adam’s body coming from ‘pre-existing living matter in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, said:

‘Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.’

Now what chance had I of convincing Catholics when our popes were confirming evolution.

It is well known the first evolution theory came about to secure the heliocentric solar-system, the Laplace's Nebular theory of 1796 one adopted by popes since 1820. It was after this rejection of the 1616 decree defining heliocentrism formal heresy that the adoption of their evolved solar system that Darwin and Dinosaurs followed in the mid 1800s. By then 'Scriptural scholars' were changing the meanings of Scripture, Genesis in particular. It is now recorded history that out popes never condemned evolution as heretical because they were fooled into believing the Churchmen of 1616 and 1633 were wrong and they didn't want to make another mistake with evolution 'science.'.
Meanwhile millions stopped believing in God due to their new belief evolution. Now who would doubt heliocentrism and evolution when both atheists and popes were one on the matter?

Donachie · « **Reply #11 on:** December 16, 2022, 03:58:35 PM »

Quote from: shimano on December 16, 2022, 12:26:39 PM

Tricerotops was a bad *ss. He minded his own business and ate plants, but, boy, was he tough. When T-Rex ambushed him, Tricerotops would, many times, kill T-Rex. Every confrontation between Tricertops and T-Rex was a gruesome battle, and Tricertops would make T-Rex suffer horribly for attacking him. Tricerotops was a robust creature. It was extremely difficult to take him down. He speared T-Rex and other predators with his huge horn and his strength and power were unmatched. His protective cranial structure made him tough, too.

I enjoyed this. What about pterosaurs and pterodactyls or quetzacoatlus? I've seen dragons and some of them flying on JewTube, I mean "YouTube".

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #12 on:** December 16, 2022, 04:32:54 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 16, 2022, 12:41:46 PM

Finding soft tissue in fossils is "check and mate" for the millions of years nonsense. There is NO WAY proteins could last that long. I don't care how you preserve them.

Those millions of years that allow something to design itself? Those untold eons that boggle the mind, causing it to shut down and believe that ANYTHING is possible? That sword cuts both ways. It also guarantees you'll have NO such proteins. hahaha.

Hoisted on their own petard. Condemned by their own nonsense.

I remember many years ago I found a fossil rock and broke it open. Inside was an elastic skin like tissue on the surface of a long roundish fossil impression. I wish I kept it or took pictures of it, but unfortunately it was moons before the digital camera age.

Incredulous · « **Reply #13 on:** December 16, 2022, 05:08:43 PM »

Quote from: cassini on December 16, 2022, 03:18:47 PM

Trouble is we were all educated to believe evolution and dinosaurs were true. I know I was. However, my late wife, who was a geocentric creationist since she was able to think (I used to consider her not as well educated as I was) knew an American Tom McFadden who gave her a creationist book to give me. It took me about 30 minutes to see I had been educated an idiot and began to write an essay to warn fellow Catholics of the fraud. Then this happened

On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II, reflecting on Pius XII’s ‘observation’ on evolution and Adam’s body coming from ‘pre-existing living matter in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, said:

‘Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.’

"Giuseppe, you gotta stoppa askin so many questiones..."

hansel · « **Reply #14 on:** December 16, 2022, 05:32:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2022, 12:28:39 AM

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fvDCWemv6VXP/

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2022, 12:29:27 AM

Eric Dubay (who made the two videos above) seems to have a pretty weird stance with regard to Christianity. After watching these videos (which overall appear to support creation-based worldviews) I wanted to explore him more, and noticed he posted a video on youtube (3 years ago) where he denies the existence of Christ and claims Christianity arose from Gnosticism.

That being said, looking at the two videos for what they are in and of themselves, the longer YouTube one does provide a nice recap about the challenges design poses for evolution, the history of the "ape to man" paleontological hoaxes, etc.
The HUGE general point he gets right in both videos is how "fleshed out" artistic renditions of any extinct animal always need to be interpreted as very speculative and imaginative at best, and lying at worst. You can look at the bones, and try to estimate the size and angles of muscles based on the scars where they attached to the bones, but recreating the color, weight, exact shape, behavior etc. of the complete extinct animal based on bones alone involves a lot of assumptions and guesses. It would be an interesting exercise to present someone with a skeleton of a lesser known but modern day animal, and ask them to draw what they think the fleshed-out animal would look like. Depending on the example, it could be very far off the mark.

However, I'm not sure his whole "dinosaurs (or their bones) never existed" argument in both videos is really conclusive, partly because he is hazy at times on what he really means by that. Does he mean (1) that bones of large extinct unknown land animals do exist, yet have been knowingly and unknowingly misrepresented in reconstructions (i.e. just that large beasts like "dinosaurs" technically existed, but our idea of what they were or looked like has been manipulated?) or (2) does he mean that practically ALL the dinosaur bones are fake and manufactured, (meaning no large extinct land animals like "dinosaurs" really ever existed)? Frauds definitely existed, and as he correctly points out have been rampant at times, but what is the total nature and extent of the fraud? Is it really complete and entire or is it partial? A few critiques/points of further discussion on some of Eric's topics:

1. Eric talks about how the skeletons on display in museums are casts, and how museums lie by portraying them as real. It's definitely true a lot of these "display" skeletons are not real organic material; you can even start to recognize a weird oversimplified texture in them. However, in theory, displaying accurate casts of real bones in museums wouldn't be a fraud IF this fact was explicitly stated by the museum. It would be the equivalent of showing a replica of the Mona Lisa with a placard saying "this is a copy of the original, which is housed behind the scenes in our collections." Most museums I've visited with supposed dinosaur skeletons do state pretty openly on each skeleton, online, or in their map handout whether it is supposedly a cast or an original, or a combination of both. Not sure though if this transparency is the case in all of them though...maybe others here could share their experiences.

2. Also, some museums do explicitly purport to display the "real thing". The question is: are these real? The natural history museum in Pittsburgh has two T-Rex skeletons displayed, one of which is listed as a cast, and the other of which is listed as an original. To be fair, if you look closely, the supposedly "real" one does look different from the "cast" one in terms of texture. It is more intricate in the details, and looks more like rock than the "casted" one. Could they both be fakes with one made more "realistic" than the other as an elaborate hoax? It's a possibility. But, it would be impossible to tell without further analysis. If we take Eric's mindset, the closest we could objectively come to in conclusion without additional evidence would be "inconclusive" rather than "absolutely a fake."

3. Eric says that only a restricted elite group of professionals get to work with the supposedly real "dinosaur bones" behind closed doors, or that only paleontology professionals find these supposed bones. However, there are many internships, fellowships, volunteer positions, and workshops where students work at dig sites and behind the scenes in museums that have the supposedly "real" bones. Granted, as with other institutions such as art museums, these are mostly students with some kind of academic connection, but they are definitely not members of the "top" elite. Now, maybe the "real" fossils the students work with could be fakes purported as real. However, the fact that these institutions can be accessed in some ways by those not-elite paleontologists opens the door to someone getting in there to confirm or deny Eric's claims.

Also, Eric never fully covers what might be behind the semi-public dinosaur fossil "digs" that anybody can participate in. He hints that the paleontologists who found the site may have tampered with it (buried fake fossils under tons of rock to be dug up later?), but then gives no explanation how this could have been done.

In addition, Eric doesn't mention supposed dinosaur findings past and recent by people who weren't part of the paleontology "elite", such as Gideon Mantell, Mary Anning, modern day construction workers, homeowners etc. Finally, he mentions how CT scanning was used to debunk some of the false fossils, but ignores that free CT scans of supposedly real fossils (and even some apparent dinosaur skulls) are available to download online on sites like MorphoSource. If these are scans of fake bones, it should be easy for a trained eye to pick out the differences in density between the fake (chicken bone, plaster, glue, resin) and real (rock), and pretty much anyone could access them. Therefore, whether the bones are real or fake, they may actually be more accessible to scrutiny than Eric indicates.

4. Eric appears to garble his history. The general idea given in both videos is that in 1841, the Victorian scientist Sir Richard Owen coined the term "dinosaur" for the first time and created the myth of dinosaurs during what Eric calls "the heyday of evolution" to further support and build the evolutionary theory. In fact, Darwin's first big evolution bestseller "On the Origin of Species" wasn't published until 18 years afterward in 1859, and even after that, the concept of evolution was still hotly contested in England. It was by no means a "heyday"; it was more like a heated struggle between two bitterly opposed academic groups; one Darwinian, the other Anglican (who supported creation). Ironically, the biggest opponent of Darwin and his evolution theories was actually Richard Owen himself, who coached the Anglican anti-Darwin bishop Samuel Wilberforce for a debate with evolutionist Thomas Huxley, wrote searing critiques of Darwin, and vocally argued that man was unique, and that the brain of a human could never evolved from that of an ape. So why would Owen start a myth of fake dinosaurs to support Darwinian evolution in 1841 when (A) he didn't agree with Darwinian evolution, and in fact fought it and (B) Darwin really wasn't even on the scene at that time? Without any evidence to provide an alternate connection, this motivation makes no sense.
Also, while he states that no evidence of dinosaur bones existed before the 19th century, he ignores various ancient accounts of "dragons", "giant's bones," the folklore of various tribes about dinosaur-like creatures which may or may not have been descriptions of dinosaurs or their remains. In addition, there is the simple fact that Victorian technology and the world political situation allowed for easier finding of bones then before (more extensive digging, mining, industry, colonization the then remote Midwest US where many fossils were etc.). These confounding alternate reasons would need to be resolved before making a conclusive argument this way.

5. Eric argues that the number of bone "sets" from only one individual dinosaur (which looks like anywhere from 2100 to 3000 to 11000 depending on the source) is too small to match the supposed abundance of these supposedly massive extinct animals, and that if they really existed, the bones should be so numerous we should be "tripping over them in our gardens". However, this ignores the fact that over thousands of years, even bones may break down over time. It all depends on the conditions; in saltwater, bones can actually be eaten by microorganisms and completely disappear. Regardless of where the truth lies in the conventional thought about preservation by fossilization, it can't be denied that fossils, even little ones like the shark teeth anyone can find on a beach, are unique in the way they are preserved; they don't look or feel like the bones themselves, but more resemble rock. One has to wonder out of all the shark teeth that could be fossilized, how many actually were fossilized this way. Was it most of them, or was it a tiny fraction of them? Therefore, considering a worldwide flood and other events, maybe this small number of bones shouldn't be an automatic conclusion of "not enough", but rather should be "is this the number of bones we would expect given these events?"

6. I might have missed it, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure Eric ever fully defines what he specifically means by an "incomplete" fossil. The examples he gives (like that one "Hadrosaur" fossil) are VERY incomplete, and he rightfully points out the idiocy of projecting a detailed picture of the whole animal from just a few bony fragments. However, are ALL the bone sets supposedly discovered this incomplete? A skeleton could be 5% complete, which tells you very little. But if it is 40%, or 50%, or 70% complete, it could tell you enough that it is like no other living animal. For example, if for the sake of argument, if all cows were extinct, we didn't know what they looked like, and all we had was the fossilized tip of one cow horn, that could be called "incomplete" and we would know next to nothing about the animal. However, if we found a cow fossil otherwise intact but with two legs missing, this would also be called "incomplete", yet we could tell a lot more about the animal. The degree of "incompleteness" would need to be quantified for each supposedly real specimen to effectively use this argument in denying the existence of dinosaurs.

7. Finally, I'm not sure his assigned motivation for the paleontologists creating a complete hoax in which all dinosaurs are fake makes sense. He says it would help further evolution, but doesn't explain how this would be such a crucial part of that. While dinosaurs are often paraded as poster children of an "old earth", there are other specific taxonomic groups that are used far more often to push strictly evolutionary ideas (think horse, whale, and man evolution etc.) Even if all dinosaurs could be proven to be fake overnight, I don't think it would significantly impact the evolutionists, as they would just trot out another of their wide range of (flawed) evolutionary examples. Also, his argument that creating a narrative of extinction of the dinosaurs somehow contradicts God's creation by making it futile doesn't seem to have a basis; how does this cause a problem theologically? St. Thomas Aquinas believed that animals died before and after Adam's fall, and extinction seems to be a part of this thread of inherent mortality of non-rational animals. Even excluding dinosaurs, many other animals have gone extinct, and it could even be argued that some extinction events that would support Genesis like the flood of Noah. In fact, some sources (for one, the book The Death of Evolution by Wallace Johnson) argue that the difficulty in figuring out evolutionary links between dinosaurs actually makes them more of a stumbling block for evolution than a boon. Most creationist groups, such as the Kolbe Institute, basically think dinosaurs were real in some shape or form.

Overall, at this point I lean more towards the thinking that a range of the fossils supposedly from "dinosaurs" are real, but they may be misinterpreted, and the fleshed-out reconstructions are more imagination than reality. However, I don't think every single fossil or dinosaur bone is necessarily a man-made fake. Definitely, the fact that there were many frauds makes me suspicious about dinosaur fossils, and if I ever encountered one, I'd want to subject it heavily to every test available to prove it false before accepting anything as real. However, I'm not sure that Eric's apparent logic of "there are so many dinosaur bone frauds, therefore they are all frauds" really works. One could incorrectly say the same thing about other subjects (for example, there are many fake relics. Therefore, all relics are fake), which of course would be a wrong conclusion.

Author Topic: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs (Read 1895 times)

Ladislaus

Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Ladislaus

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Ladislaus

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

cassini

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Ladislaus

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

josefamenendez

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

shimano

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Matthew

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Matthew

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Marius

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

cassini

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Donachie

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

Incredulous

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs

hansel

Re: Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs