Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Here is some more REAL science that you all might want to have a look at.

North Carolina State University discovered original biological tissue from a supposedly 65-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, with transparent and pliable blood vessels containing red blood cells!

Iron-clad "Dinosaur-era" tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: In this peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, scientists confirm another biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a Mosasaur.

Fossils with Protein, DNA and Bacteria: For decades these kinds of announcements have been mostly just ignored because of the old-earth evolutionary assumptions.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Contains Carbon 14 and Mostly Left-Handed Amino Acids: As you view the exciting scientific discoveries below, please feel free to listen to Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart observe their annual tradition of talking about the dinosaur soft-tissue finds and so many other related wonderful discoveries. And make sure to view the list and excerpts below of the web's most complete report on the peer-reviewed dinosaur soft-tissue research!

And evolution denier and an evagelist Nice people to talk science with. I'm going to go out on a ledge and say that the info about the veins and tendons is refutted by all other paleontologists.

FYI carbon 14 is a useless measure for anything older than 40k year old. Doing that measurement and getting any result on a scecimen that is known to be more than 40k years old makes it an invalid test.

Uranium isotope is a better and standard measure of ancient fossils. Creationist know this but insist on muddling facts.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Robert,
Its a very long article, i just read the first few paragraphs. Its interesting!

Robert do you take the young-earth view that the whole planet earth is only a few thousand years old?
Do you think the whole planet is 6,000 years old?
Do you think God created the dinosaurs in the last 6,000 years?

What is your position? Speak freely Robert, i'm not going to attack you. But i will debate it with you. I think that only the human beings are 6,000 years old, not all the fossilised creatures in the rocks. I think the fossils are from a completely different epoch that God did NOT discuss in the Bible.

John.

Before everyone goes rushing off with half baked ideas, just what is this Bellarmine report thing? Never heard of it! It's obviously a religious fanatics site and not to be taken seriously, like a lot of things around here.

Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bellarmine_Report

I will have you know, i fully bake all my ideas! I'm good at cooking!

John.

Quoting skildude here - is science ever meant to be "boring"?

"Boring" - no. Peer-reviewed and accepted - yes.

quoting me from a different thread completely- idiotic

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

It has been said by many that birds are living Dinosaur's. And this part kinda confirms this...

…collagen [type] I has unique characteristics… making validation of its presence relatively straightforward.This finding suggests that the bone mineral is virtually unchanged from the living state and has undergone little if any alteration. … the elasticity of dinosaur tissues was similar to that of demineralized extant bone.…bone extracts showed reactivity to antibodies raised against chicken collagen… We confirmed the antibody reactivity data by in situ immunohistochemistry…Additionally, antibody reactivity (Fig. 2J) was significantly decreased after we digested dinosaur tissues with collagenase…Immunohistochemistry performed on sediments was negative for binding.In situ TOF-SIMS [ion mass spectroscopy] analyses were performed to unambiguously detect amino acid residues consistent with the presence of protein in demineralized MOR 1125 [T. rex] tissues.Sandstones entombing the dinosaur, subjected to TOF-SIMS as a control, showed little or no evidence for these amino acids.… that molecular fragments of original proteins are preserved in the mineralized matrix of bony elements of MOR 1125 is supported by peptide sequences recovered from dinosaur extracts, some of which align uniquely with chicken collagen… The amount of protein or protein-like components… was ~0.62% for cortical bone and 1.3% for medullary bone.Additionally, experiments have been conducted independently in at least three different labs and by numerous investigators, and the results strongly support the endogeneity [internal origin] of collagen-like protein molecules. -Science 2007, Schweitzer, et al.

Also the piece kinda tell how the soft tissue lasted so long...

"The possibility that microbes may have invaded bone and vascular channels after death, secreting extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that subsequently mineralized, was also considered. If deposition of mineral upon microbial biofilm allowed retention of flexibility in one case, it is feasible to propose that the same process contributed to the preservation of the original vessel walls."And back in 2007, the authors write that while they remain open to further pending analysis of the osteocytes, they "consider these cell-like structures to be remains of original cells."Then a few months later the journal Science published a peer-reviewed paper from a team of scientists including from Harvard and the University of Chicago marking a significant development in the history of this breakthrough field. For this excerpt, remember that the word endogenous means originating within, of course, as opposed to an external contamination.

[Triceratops Update: An unpublished preliminary report from the director of the electron microscope lab at the Northridge campus of California State University indicates the first-ever discoveries in 2012 of soft tissue from a triceratops horn, and more significantly, apparently of osteocytes (bone cells) in matrix, that is, not found after de-mineralization while floating in isolation, but still in situ, where they would have appeared in the living animal.]
2007 - Science: Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein by Schweitzer [and six other authors from NCSU; MSU; Beth Israel Med. Ctr.; Harvard School of Med.; Univ. of Chicago].
"We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary [pregnancy-related bone] tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation." And the team considers the implications of the "presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone…""…it has been hypothesized that original molecules will be either lost or altered to the point of nonrecognition over relatively short time spans (well under a million years) (1–7). However, the discovery of intact structures retaining original transparency, flexibility, and other characteristics in specimens dating at least to the Cretaceous (8, 9) [65+ mya] suggested that, under certain conditions, remnant organic constituents may persist across geological time." -Science 2007, Schweitzer, et al.

The standard explanation by atheists and evolutionists that I've seen, including at League of Reason, is that the biofilm interpretation published in 2008 has "refuted" the soft-tissue claims. Apparently that's your explanation too. I can't be sure because rather than provide evidence for me and the readers you have simply stated that the soft tissue has been "refuted." And whereas I've been posting all along extensive evidence of my assertion, you've left us guessing as to how, when, where, by whom this has been "refuted." The 2008 biofilm paper is a worthwhile scientific endeavor: exploring whether bacteria could create these dinosaur artifacts. But on its primary goal it was given far too much credit because it virtually ignored the following positive evidence from this same 2007 paper (and from elsewhere):

All in all Id have to say that I still believe in billions and millions of years. But, I leave the door open for other thoughts. This isn't the door slammer on Darwin, but it does slam the door shut on Neo-Darwinism. I would hope that they do such work on human bones. For example, it has been said and work done on Neanderthals finds that RED HAIR can be traced to them. While this doesn't, once again, slam the door shut on Darwin or for that matter Neo-Darwinism it does leave it open for more study with this new find. Neo-Darwinism does not allow, 'for'..."source of variation involving blending inheritance" as the piece I posted here tells us about with Dinosaurs and chickens. I believe that God's Guiding Hand was involved in this process. Darwin just stumbled onto Gods plan. Neo-Darwinism makes HUGE attempts to take God out of the equation. It has now been proven to my satisfaction that Neo-Darwinism is false. THANK YOU!

It has now been proven to my satisfaction that Neo-Darwinism is false. THANK YOU!

It's easy to prove your bias when you find the data that fits your conclusion. Gee, ain't science fun when there's so many different hypotheses (and a lot of bad science) to choose from!

And you are researching and looking for signals from UFO's, not to forget.

As far as I know you never have received any intelligent signals from such things.

Is this research field meant to be science at all - or is it just hype everything?

Please advice me.

Thanks!

Yes, I am using my computer to find data that ETI exists. I haven't started with the assumption that ETI exists or does not exist. That's what science is all about.

The problem is that you may not be able to separate or differentiate bad or poor numbers from good or better ones.

Blame users like me (who is not supposed to understand anything).

The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about and most people don't bother responding to you (in case you haven't noticed).

In my opinion, one doesn't have to be able to present "The Correct Solution" to a scientific problem in order to identify an incorrect or flawed solution.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Well, apparently some have reading problems. Logic problem and so forth...

Yes, but we've been trying to help you with that.

Prejudice and ad hominem attacks is not an argument.

Prejudice and ad hominem attacks is not an argument.

So why did you create this thread with that title?

Prejudice (Theory) vs Science(Hard Evidence) - So if prejudice is not an argument, Science wins by default!

---

Prejudice and ad hominem attacks is not an argument.

Then I suggest you build a better foundation of belief system that doesn't use bad science or discredited ideologists.

Discredited by who. You Folks? BAWahahahahahahahahahaha!

Science by who? You folks? Once again....BAWahahahahahahaha!