Scientists Decided To Avoid Testing The Dino In Dakota

It’s an incredible story, more so for evolutionists than creationists because scientists were able to identify organic molecules from soft tissue that supposedly died over 66 million years ago.

Back in December 2007, the remains of the animal which was discovered in 1999, was being displayed to the world as reported by National Geographic…

“The extraordinarily preserved hadrosaur, or duck-billed dino, still had much of its tissues and bones intact, encased in an envelope of skin.  Research into the dinosaur’s remains may further scientists’ understanding of how the ancient creatures’ skin appeared and how quickly they moved, said team leader Phillip Manning of the University of Manchester, a National Geographic Expeditions Council grantee.”

“We’re looking at a three-dimensional skin envelope,” Manning said. “In many places it’s complete and intact—around the tail, arms, and legs and part of the body.”

Scientists excited the fossil still contained cell-like structures, which is also great news for creationists as well. It’s amazing to observe amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present in a fossil. What’s make this even more amazing, is the fact that evolutionists calculated this animal to be 66 million years old!

Derek Briggs, a Yale paleontologist who studies exceptionally-preserved fossils, told BBC news though it’s possible for cell-like structures to be found in the Dino fossil from Dakota, he doesn’t believe this is out of the norm and more fossils like this one being discovered wouldn’t be a surprise to him. Then goes on to say, some have been overlooked. Do you see a pattern here?

Derek Briggs presumption about Dinosaur fossils being millions of years old, but yet he explains this incredible discovery as though it was routine, but it is not. Like his fellow evolutionists, nobody predicted the remains to be so well preserved! Of course creationists would expect to find such fossils because we believe these dinosaur fossils are only thousands of years old.

So what testing are scientists avoiding? I’ll give you an obvious hint. Do scientists know how to degrade organic material? We still have anoxic bacteria around after all. This Dino fossil found in Dakota was in rock, not in an oxygen free environment like in an underwater cave. So this is certainly a testable hypothesis, then why aren’t they not conducting an experiment with other animals that simulates various plausible burial environments, and then measure the outcome by observing the decay rates?

It seems it’s not even on the table, because they are not even discussing such an idea which one would think would be important on understanding how the soft tissue contained in the dinosaur fossil was preserved after so many years!  They are definitely avoiding such testing until perhaps they can come up with an explanation first, before the experiment possibly conflicts with their story on evolution.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Scientists Decided To Avoid Testing The Dino In Dakota

  1. Well, you simply measure its age, and because it is still there, it hasn’t decayed. That’s just observations, so why would you want to test observations like that ? Do you think they are a hoax ?

    If you actually dig something up, it obviously has not decayed. If you then measure its age, it obviously has not decayed during that time.

    And again (and again and again): evolution is not a story, it is a well-tested scientific theory. Such insults are not necessary, and just diminish your credibility.

  2. Michael (well, ICR, actually): “So this is certainly a testable hypothesis, then why aren’t they not conducting an experiment with other animals that simulates various plausible burial environments, and then measure the outcome by observing the decay rates?”

    The REAL question is, why are no creationists lifting a finger to perform these tests? More generally, why have no creationists ever conducted any research, performed any experiments, developed any models, or run any simulations on anything whatsoever?

    What are they afraid of?

    Well, I can think of two related fears offhand. (1) Since their theory is incapable of predicting beforehand a specific result of any future observation, any result would confirm the theory; therefore, why bother to go through the motions at all? (2) Because of #1, any specific ‘prediction’ is a random guess, and thus quite likely to invoke egg on their faces.

  3. Michael: “Scientists excited the fossil still contained cell-like structures, which is also great news for creationists as well. It’s amazing to observe amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present in a fossil. What’s make this even more amazing, is the fact that evolutionists calculated this animal to be 66 million years old!”

    This certainly is news for creationists, since 66 million years is about 10,000 times as old as the universe. Bad news, however, not great news.

    On the other hand, if the universe (and thus the fossil) is only 6,000 years old, then the preservation is not news at all to creationists. There are lots of soft tissue from mastodons and giant sloths which are only 20,000—I mean 6,000—years old. Scientists have even reconstructed the DNA of a Neandertal, the last of whom died out 30,000—sorry, 6,000—years ago. And, Otzi, now aged 5,000 years.

    In fact, if all fossils are only 6,000 years old as creationists believe, then many or most should preserve soft tissue and DNA. So this is certainly a testable hypothesis, then why aren’t they not conducting an experiment with other animals that simulates various plausible burial environments, and then measure the outcome by observing the decay rates?”

  4. Eelco, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Why do we bother? Is it just for the laughs?

  5. I bother because I care about science. But why this particular blog ? I guess because Michael at least is courteous, in some funny way (even though he is hardening his tone somewhat, and I get a bit annoyed by his references to ‘story telling’ and ‘special interest groups’, and of course his refusal to read up on basic science). There is no swearing and the bible references are rare, which is not true on most creationist blogs …

    But I do not know how long I’ll manage to keep doing the easy fault finding in the arguments presented, which, as you say, almost exclusively come elsewhere.

    He keeps ignoring the existence of tidal fields, for example, which is getting tedious.

    For laughs I go elsewhere, most definitely. The pharyngula blog by PZ Myers is very amusing, for example:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

    I’ll try not to get too depressed by this blog here.

  6. Eelco, the good thing about Pharyngula (I’ve met PZ several times), Panda’s Thumb, and Bad Astronomy is that you actually learn about new research. On creationists sites, all you can learn is possibly negative aspects of someone else’s research. Never anything positive or new. That’s why I claim that the title of this blog is inaccurate.

    Yes, Michael is courteous, and I appreciate that. But he never engages the comments, doesn’t attempt to justify what he (or the ICR) states. That’s really the reason for saying “why bother.”

    Happy Fourth of July. Well, you may see the fireworks if you are overflying the US on your way to Chile. Someone once told me that every country has an independence day, always in the summer. Is that true?

  7. Olorin, it is true that Michael never tries to debate anything – I am still hoping he’ll do that one day, but for now I just boringly correct all the obvious mistakes …. not a fun job.
    Which is why I indeed visit the sites you mentioned, especially Bad Astronomy (for obvious reasons).

    Independence days are all over the year – the one in Austria, where I’ve lived for some time, is in November. In my home country (Holland, where I do not live), there is not independence day, just a ‘liberation’ day (from the nazi’s), which is in May. Almost always good weather.

    I do not celebrate the Fourth of July: I can’t celebrate all independence days on the planet ….
    I normally think about the natives on that day, who were almost completely wiped out by my fellow Europeans …

  8. “I normally think about the natives on that day, who were almost completely wiped out by my fellow Europeans …”

    True. And it’s still happening. The Native Americans here in Minnesota, as elsewhere, are fighting even higher rates of diabetes and obesity than the immigrant Scandahoovians.

    A connection to evolution. A recent hypothesis attempts to link diabetes and obesity prevalence to tuberculosis epidemics several hundred years ago. Natural selection, it asserts, generated a quicker and more powerful inflammation response to fight the tuberculosis. The alleles remain, even though the threat has disappeared. But now they have become harmful rather than advantageous. Interesting.

    Biology is a recent acquisition for me. Several years ago I began working with clients in the bioinformatics area, and became more than professionally interested.

  9. I almost ended up in bioinformatics a couple of years ago – the analysis techniques of DNA samples has a lot in common with astronomical data analysis techniques, and astronomers are actively approached by bioinformaticists.

    But I decided to stay in astronomy anyway … too much fun.

  10. An interesting application of evolutionary bioinformatics. A couple of years ago, a team digitized hundreds of copies of Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” of various ages. The original was written in Middle English in the 13thC, and had been hand copied through many generations over hundreds of years. The team applied an evolutionary algorithm to come up with a stab at the original version.

    You never know where evolutionary research will be useful.

    I think all science and technologies are interesting. That’s why I interrupted a PhD in electrical engineering to go into patent law almost five decades ago. In 1953, a group of us nerds in high school built a cyclotron. Now that was fun. We left the mass spectrometer as a project for the following class, to find out what atoms we had actually smashed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s