forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,07:45) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:32) | | Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07) | | Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50) | | Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity |
Of course they do, muppet. Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic. What's your point? |
Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:
All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.
Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up. |
Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying
Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue
Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent |
You are lying here too.
You did NOT give examples of soft tissue. You gave examples of the IMPRESSION of soft tissue that was made in soft, fine grained sediment.
You have not shown that you even understand the difference between tissue and rock.
You never did tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang.
On the 'snaking canyons' thing. All of lightening is explained by the physics involved. Likewise canyon formation is explained by the chemistry and physics involved.
There is a fundamental difference between carving a straight channel in soft sediment and a multi-curved path carved through very hard rock.
What's the difference? |
Remember how narcissists dismissing everything without reading? If you would have read the articles you would have seen quotes like
Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
Two different immunological assays were used to identify the remains of a bone matrix protein, osteocalcin (OC), in the bones of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates. Antibodies raised against OC from modern vertebrates showed strong immunological cross-reactivity with modern and relatively young fossil samples and significant reactions with some of the dinosaur bone extracts. The presence of OC was confirmed by the detection of a peptide-bound, uniquely vertebrate amino acid, {gamma}carboxyglutamic acid (Gla). Preservation of OC in fossil bones appears to be strongly dependent on the burial history and not simply on age. These results extend the range of protein preservation in the geologic record and provide a first step toward a molecular phylogeny of the dinosaurs.
Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....4....4XLc-t4
Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted July 29, 2000
These scientists analyzed samples from two vertebrae and a rib fragment of a Triceratops from North Dakota, USA, isolating 130 base pairs of its 12S rRNA gene (ribosomal RNA, a type of RNA found in the ribosomes of cells, where protein synthesis occurs). 100% of the base pairs matched those of the turkey (and 94.5% were similar to many of the other bird RNA samples tested). If true, this find certainly strengthens the argument that birds and dinosaurs are closely related.
Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html
“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Furthermore, she added, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed(or seen perhaps?) before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’” Mary Schweitzer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....7....7316912 A video with her own words
...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna
Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.
Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift
again you scoffing without reading
“Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade." National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121.
|
