Dino tissue Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years: Censored conference report

[Marcus Aurelius]

Carbon dating can give wildly innacurate dates if not applied correctly.
I've read about tests were living mice have be Carbon Dated to be thousands of years old. etc.

Not C-14 dating. It's generally extremely accurate.

[revelarts]

Because in science you don't publish every set of findings you have to conference or the media. The data has to be reviewed, subjected to rigger and testing.
Otherwise it ends with egg on its face, classic examples like 'Cold Fusion' and 'Faster than light nutrinos' show all to well what happens when scientists rush to publication and conference when bizarre results are recorded, even if they are recored again and again.

Either way there will be something big in this story, better make sure and get it right, no?

As mentioned in the article, the testing was careful and rigorous. And it's not the 1st time the results have been shown. AND they asked others to review there findings. And they've asked other to repeat the test on different samples.

one of the issues here is that since everyone has assumed that's all dinos are 65million + yrs old so no ones been looking to see if there is cartilage and soft tissue available to test.

which again, cartilage and soft tissue, should prove on it's face that many Dinosaurs remnants are NOT millions of years old.

[Marcus Aurelius]

As mentioned in the article, the testing was careful and rigorous. And it's not the 1st time the results have been shown. AND they asked others to review there findings. And they've asked other to repeat the test on different samples.

one of the issues here is that since everyone has assumed that's all dinos are 65million + yrs old so no ones been looking to see if there is cartilage and soft tissue available to test.

which again, cartilage and soft tissue, should prove on it's face that many Dinosaurs remnants are NOT millions of years old.

That is the key word... 'assumed'. Personally, I find the thought that dinos, or at least 'some' dinos, may not be nearly as old as we thought fascinating.

[revelarts]

Because in science you don't publish every set of findings you have to conference or the media. The data has to be reviewed, subjected to rigger and testing.
Otherwise it ends with egg on its face, classic examples like 'Cold Fusion' and 'Faster than light nutrinos' show all to well what happens when scientists rush to publication and conference when bizarre results are recorded, even if they are recorded again and again.

Either way there will be something big in this story, better make sure and get it right, no?

And as the article also stated it's not the 1st time this information has been presented.
news came out about the soft tissue in dinosaurs in 2005 . But everyone knew that it "SHOULD NOT be there" if the evolutionary timelines were correct. So many people tried to come up with alternative explanations, however the research has confirmed the soft tissue finds now this research just confirms what it obviously means, that the soft tissue is not millions of years old. therefore the dinosaurs didn't die off 65 millions yrs ago. EVEN THOUGH they were found in ROCK ASSUMED to be that old.

[Marcus Aurelius]

fascinating article on this discovery, from 2006.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../dinosaur.html

Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

“When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

[pete311]

Good God people. Look at the damn sources provided. A some no name crackpot website and a no name conference with like 20 people attending. There has been no legit news or journal studies on this.

[darin]

Do you get dirt in your ears from having your head in the sand?

[Marcus Aurelius]

As mentioned in the article, the testing was careful and rigorous. And it's not the 1st time the results have been shown. AND they asked others to review there findings. And they've asked other to repeat the test on different samples.

one of the issues here is that since everyone has assumed that's all dinos are 65million + yrs old so no ones been looking to see if there is cartilage and soft tissue available to test.

which again, cartilage and soft tissue, should prove on it's face that many Dinosaurs remnants are NOT millions of years old.

ding ding ding ding! we have a winner.

[pete311]

ding ding ding ding! we have a winner.

It's a little more than an assumption when 99.999% of the tests performed on dino fossils suggest millions of years old.

One small fry unverified study does not flip the current consensus on it's head.

cartilage and soft tissue were not found. you make it sound like rotting flesh was in the bone. the mineral matrix was dissolved with an acid and the result was proteins and collagen fibers were found. They mean that polymer molecules were interspersed with mineral crystals. That is a lot different. protein preservation is amazing no doubt. I've read a few quotes from scientists that it's not out of the realm of possibility for proteins to be preserved for millions of years given the right conditions. After all a very poorly made mummy can preserve collagen after 2000+ years. Organic molecules don't decompose on a fixed schedule. Organic molecules last until something happens to them. There is no expiration date on organic molecules isolated from microorganisms.

[gabosaurus]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mrZcztxRquo" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>.

[revelarts]

1. Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian
   
   http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ker-115306469/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still -soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when ...
   
2. Lawsuit: CSUN scientist fired after soft tissue found on dinosaur fossil
   
   losangeles.cbslocal.com/ 2014/ 07/ 24/ scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dino saur-fossil/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   Jul 24, 2014 ... Attorneys for a Cal State Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a ...
   
3. How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils? - HowStuffWorks
   
   science.howstuffworks.com/ environmental/ earth/ geology/ soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   In fossils like these, the body was protected from decay long enough for minerals to replace the soft tissues faster than they could decay. The soft tissues ...
   
4. Scientist dismissed after soft tissue found on dinosaur fossil | Ancient ...
   
   www.ancient-origins.net/ news-evolution-human-origins/ scientist-dismissed-after-soft-tissue-found-dinosaur-fossil-001906 - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   Jul 25, 2014 ... Several ground-breaking discoveries in the last decade have revealed preserved soft tissue on dinosaur remains, such as the recent finding of ...
   
5. Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material | Bob Enyart Live
   
   www.kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   More Soft Dinosaur Tissue, Now from an "80 Million" Year Old Hadrosaur: Consistent with the expectations of biblical creationists, according to Nat'l Geographic, ...
   
6. Apologetics Press - Soft Tissue from a Dinosaur?
   
   www.apologeticspress.org/articles/304 - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   “Do not forget suntan lotion!” Only recently have those words become a familiar cry for mothers with young children. In years past, mothers worried about boys ...
   
7. Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained - LiveScience
   
   www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   Nov 26, 2013 ... They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared ...
   
8. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue - Scientific ...
   
   http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...od-from-stone/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   Mounting evidence from dinosaur bones shows that, contrary to common belief, organic materials can sometimes survive in fossils for millions of years.
   
9. Dinosaur soft tissue - creation.com
   
   www.creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
   Jan 28, 2014 ... Evolutionist Mary Schweitzer trying desperately to explain dinosaur soft tissue by saying iron in blood preserved it 70+ million years.
   
10. University Fired Scientist For Finding Soft Tissue on Dinosaur Horn
    
    www.thecollegefix.com/post/18549/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    Jul 25, 2014 ... In the summer of 2012, while at the world-famous dinosaur dig at Hell ... “The finding of soft tissue in a triceratops horn, complete with bone ...
    
11. Mary Higby Schweitzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    ... is known for leading the groups that discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex ...
    
12. Iron Key to Preserving Dinosaur Soft Tissue | Answers in Genesis
    
    https://answersingenesis.org/ dinosaurs/ bones/ iron-key-to-preserving-dinosaur-soft-tissue/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    Dec 4, 2013 ... Iron may paradoxically be the key, claim evolutionist researchers, to preserving dinosaur soft tissue for evolution's assumed millions of years.
    
13. 
    
    
    Jul 26, 2014 ... http://www.undergroundworldnews.com A microscope scientist working for California State University has been fired following the discovery ...
    
14. Massive Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery In China – Includes Skin ...
    
    www.infowars.com/ massive-dinosaur-soft-tissue-discovery-in-china-includes-skin-and-fea thers/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    Mar 7, 2014 ... A fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time. According to ...
    
15. WORLD | Trumpeting a dinosaur horn | Daniel James Devine | July ...
    
    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/07/trum..._dinosaur_horn - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    Jul 25, 2014 ... Other scientists have recognized the quandary created by soft dinosaur tissue. In 2008, some researchers attempted to solve the problem by ...
    
16. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay
    
    http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-...sue-here-stay/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were ...
    
17. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?
    
    http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-...rved-by-blood/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    Dec 11, 2013 ... Researchers are now suggesting that iron embedded in blood proteins preserved the still-soft tissues, cells, and molecules discovered inside ...
    
18. T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved - National Geographic News
    
    news.nationalgeographic.com/ news/ 2005/ 03/ 0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    Mar 24, 2005 ... For the first time, scientists have extracted what appears to be soft tissue from a dinosaur. The meaty-looking tissue seems to contain blood ...
    
19. Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells ...
    
    www.nature.com/ news/ molecular-analysis-supports-controversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1. 11637 - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
    Oct 22, 2012 ... New evidence adds heat to the argument over prehistoric dinosaur ... Do fossils of dinosaurs, such as Tyrannosaurus rex, contain soft tissues?
    
    

etc etc...

[revelarts]

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

"* Another RSR Prediction Confirmed: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams had predicted on air early in 2014 that original dinosaur and other soft tissue would be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. Now that allegedly 530 million-year-old remains have been reported in the Journal of Paleontology of the original and still soft tissue of Precambrian "beard worm" fossils, we are calling that prediction confirmed!RSR presents here the scientific journals reporting, the kinds of biological material found so far, and the dinosaurs yielding up these exciting discoveries:"

Scientific Journals: Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS One, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Bone, the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, and others below in our chronological catalog, "the web's most complete list of dinosaur soft tissue discoveries," as published in many leading journals, according to a co-author of one of those papers.

Biological Material Found: As of April 2014, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton component actin, and hemoglobin, bone maintenance osteocyte cells, and powerful evidence for DNA.

Dinosaur and Dinosaur-Layer Creatures: The dinosaurs and other Mesozoic creatures that have yielded their biological material are hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur [ostrich-like dinosaurs], mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, and Archaeopteryx.
As you view the exciting scientific discoveries below in this chronological catalog, please feel free to listen to Real Science Radio co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart observe their annual tradition of presenting dinosaur soft tissue and other amazing discoveries including short-lived left-handed amino acids, DNA, and Carbon 14, all in bones and other specimens from dinosaur-layer Mesozoic and even deeper strata.


* "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue: The T. rex photos above are actually old news, whereas all the latest published journal papers, through 2013, are listed chronologically, below. As for these photos though, North Carolina State University discovered this original biological tissue from a supposedly 65-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, with transparent and pliable blood vessels containing red blood cells. See these and other T. rex photos at Smithsonian Magazine and MS-NBC, and see an early Nat'l Geographic report. Famed paleontologist Jack Horner of Montana State University worked the excavation site. In a 2011 development, ten leading universities and institutes including Harvard, the University of Manchester, and the University of Pennsylvania published in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed journal, that they had verified that presumed dinosaur material is indeed original biological tissue from a dinosaur! Creationists refer to dinosaurs as missionary lizards for many reasons including:
- the short-lived Carbon 14 everywhere including in dinosaur bones
- the 521-year half-life of DNA that helps date the actual age of fossils containing dinosaurian genetic material, and
- the mostly left-handed amino acids that should be equally right and left handed if they were "Jurassic", and
- the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive. Interestingly, the renowned evolutionist shows and Bob Enyart sums it up, "This is dinosaur."

[fj1200]

Scientists just found soft tissue inside a dinosaur fossil. Here's why that's so exciting.

Dinosaur fossils, it was long thought, are simple objects. The fossilization process leaves the overall shape of a dinosaur's bones intact, but all the microscopic structures inside them — the blood cells, connective fibers, and other sorts of soft tissue — inevitably decay over time.
But that view is changing — and it's possible that many ancient fossils may preserve more detail than meets the eye. The sort of biological tissue now being found in some fossils could tell us about dinosaur anatomy, behavior, and evolution in ways that weren't possible just a few years ago.

[revelarts]

Scientists just found soft tissue inside a dinosaur fossil. Here's why that's so exciting.

Yeah "the view is changing."

but the science of decay is fixed. But creating stories to keep the old theoretical dates intact are fluid.

so far there have been at least 3 scientific options floated to try to explain away the soft tissue.

1st it was that it was not Dino tissue at all, that it was a --get it now RECENT-- bio film. that was the 1st.
why? because the science of decay rate for living tissue is well known. it's real experimental science.

after the 1st option was proved false.
then the more creative speculations came up,
mostly based on the environments the fossil where found in.

one said it was "DRY" therefore... But the tissue has been found in areas were it's been wet overtime as well.

the 1st discoverer of Dino tissue has tried to say that it's becsue there's the presence of extra IRON in the soils therefore....
but that doesn't account for it either.

the fact is there is no way account for what we all know.
if you put a bone in the ground. Desert, bog, snowy mountain, river bed, forest floor, that over time within a few to a few thousand years your not going have have any soft tissue left.

it's been shown in mummies, and other buried bones of known date.
And add to the that the carbon 14 dating and you have 2 reliable scientific points to fix your recent dates with.
if we want to be scientific then the FACTS should change the therioes of long ages. but it's DOGMA so people will fight rather than change.

[revelarts]

dinosaur soft tissue
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

...the allegedly 530 million-year-old still soft, original biological material has been reported in theJournal of Paleontologyfrom a pre-Cambrian marine.

..* Carbon-14 Found Everywhere It's Not Supposed To Be (even .)


* Studies Carbon Dating Mosasaur and Dinosaur Bones: Saving RSR a lot of money, including in connection with soft tissue, scientists have begun reporting carbon dating of Mesozoic-layer (not era) fossil bones:
- Carbon 14 in a Mosasaur Bone: The 2011 peer-reviewed PLoS One paper excerpted below reported significant 14C measured in an allegedly 80-million year old dinosaur-layer fossil. However, they interpreted it in a manner inconsistent with the primary finding of their paper, claiming that the 14C must be from contamination. This runs somewhat counter to their conclusion that the biological material in the small bone IS NOT from bacterial or other contamination. If the carbon 14 were from contamination, such a condition would make the claim of survival of allegedly 80-million year old biological material even more obviously impossible.
- 14C in 10 Dinosaurs Reported at 2012 AGU Conference: Real Science Radio interviewed a scientist returning from the American Geophysical Union's conference in Singapore where his international team presented results from five respected laboratories documenting significant quantities of Carbon 14 in bones from ten dinosaurs excavated from Alaska, Europe, Texas, Montana, and China's Gobi Desert. Radioactivity tests helped to discount neutron capture as a source for the modern carbon. And see also the reasons why contamination is not a valid explanation.
- Some Dino 14C from Contamination: The PLoS One 2008 study that had found bacterial biofilm carbon dated that specimen and found so much modern carbon, in excess of 1950 quantities, that it was rightly attributed to contamination.
- Mary Schweitzer 14C Rumor: A spring 2012 rumor has it that Mary Schweitzer has carbon dated soft tissue dinosaur specimens but has not released the results. Of course she may interpret the results as misleading or insignificant but let's hope and pray that she makes the data public.

* Historic DNA Discovery: Dr. Mary Schweitzer has published her 2013 discovery in the journal Bone, documenting the presence of four proteins in dinosaur fossils and the presence of dinosaur DNA (see below and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's analysis at creation.com).