Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[Ghosty]

Professional paleontologists complain that these ‘pirates’ are ruining prime fossil beds, and now ‘shovel bums’ must take a basic paleontology course and document their finds.

The amusing part of this is that professional paleontology began as “fossil pirating”. It was so bad, in fact, that today we have multiple names for some dinosaur species because there was very little careful cross-checking before naming, and the push to find something “new and unique” was huge for business

 

[catholic2]

vern humphrey:

Not likely, given that dinosaurs disappeared long before the first homonids came along.

Now, if you’re looking for a candidate beast (assuming this is a real beast and not a metaphor) something like an Aurochs or a Mammoth is a far more likely candidate.

With a tail like a tree? I doubt that.

 

[catholic2]

Kevin Walker:

Wasn’t behemoth a hippopotamus?

With a tail like a tree? Nah! Besides, a Hippo is kinda small and cute, with piglywigly tail.

 

[catholic2]

vern humphrey:

To this day, American soldiers refer to iintense combat as “seeing the elephant.”

Never heard of this, I a former marine.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, but what aspect of the tree is it talking about? Its length, its girth, its bark, its leaves? Obviously we don’t have enough information on what was meant, because we don’t know any animals with leaves on their tails.

 

[catholic2]

Ghosty:

Yes, but what aspect of the tree is it talking about? Its length, its girth, its bark, its leaves? Obviously we don’t have enough information on what was meant, because we don’t know any animals with leaves on their tails.

Well if you think it’s a hippo or elephant of sort, then the aspect of the tree would be a twig. I would take the obvious. A tail like a cedar would be a very large tail…like a dinosaur (oops, I said it so I’m ducking! Incoming!)

 

[SweetPea]

vern humphrey:

How, in the name of Holy Gilhooly does the existance of creatures in the past that are DIFFERENT from existing creatures DISprove evolution?

It was a joke and someone was pulling our legs.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think that taking the girth of the tree as the intended meaning is “obvious”. The obvious meaning of the “bronze tubes” is the color, IMO, but bones ain’t bronze.

 

[catholic2]

Ghosty:

I don’t think that taking the girth of the tree as the intended meaning is “obvious”. The obvious meaning of the “bronze tubes” is the color, IMO, but bones ain’t bronze.

Seems obvious to me. Bronze tubes signify strength as in the bronze tubes in the Jewish temple that was used as columns.

 

[Ghosty]

And what were trees used to symbolize? Are you also using ancient Jewish terminology, or your own assumptions?

I’m not opposing the idea that a dinosaur like creature could have been walking around during the time, by the way. We’ve found a LOT of supposedly extinct animals even in recent history. I just feel that people are jumping to conclusions more out of an interest in backing up their personal theological interpretation rather than a genuine interest in zoology.

 

[catholic2]

Ghosty:

And what were trees used to symbolize? Are you also using ancient Jewish terminology, or your own assumptions?

I’m not opposing the idea that a dinosaur like creature could have been walking around during the time, by the way. We’ve found a LOT of supposedly extinct animals even in recent history. I just feel that people are jumping to conclusions more out of an interest in backing up their personal theological interpretation rather than a genuine interest in zoology.

If you had to describe the tail of a dinosaur, where it tapers to a point, a tree is an excellent analogy. Come now, we can reason on this. Sure one might have biases based on what one believes, but that does not mean that the conclusion is in error. We all have biases, but we all can present facts as we see it and weigh it in that manner. Here’s some biases: evolutionists, creationist, gap theorists, preterism, etc.

 

[Ghosty]

Oh absolutely. I have no problem with speculation that the creature was a dinosaur, or an auroch, or a mammoth. So long as the discussion keeps its proper place

Personally I’m fascinated by discussions like this. It was reports like this that many people rejected about the coelocanth, yet one was caught and brought to public attention.

 

[catholic2]

thanks for the discussion, Ghosty. Have a good Easter. I’m going home now.
aloha

 

[vern_humphrey]

catholic2:

With a tail like a tree? I doubt that.

Let me see – do I believe that they are referring to an animal that disappeared 50 million years before the first hominids appeared, or do I believe they were describing an existing or recently exinct animal they had only heard about or never seen?

Decisions, decisions.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Allow me to point out that the Cyclops of the Greeks was indisputably the Mammoth – mammoth skulls have a single large hole (the anchor for the trunk muscles) that connects with the eye-holes. This caused Greeks finding mammot hskulls to believe it was a one-eyed creature.

 

[catholic2]

vern humphrey:

Let me see – do I believe that they are referring to an animal that disappeared 50 million years before the first hominids appeared, or do I believe they were describing an existing or recently exinct animal they had only heard about or never seen?

Decisions, decisions.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Umm I’m paraphrasing from the Book of Job chapter 40.
It’s God speaking to Job describing Behemoth.

 

[Orogeny]

tuopaolo:

Tim,

Thanks for pointing that out. While I do not agree with the Sola Scriptura that may be expressed in the first statement and with their canon, I agree completely with their stance on how “science” “history” cannot overturn the word of God which for us Catholics is authoritatively proclaimed and taught by the magisterium.

So you should have no problem with evolution.

The word of God is inerrant. The extraordinary magisterium and the ordinary, universal magisterium is infallible. “Scientists” “historians” OTOH are neither of these things.

Agreed.

So I will always cleave to Him and to His Church, placing my faith in Him rather than in any “scientists” and “historians.”

His Church has stated that evolution is more than a hypothesis. Will you cleave to that?

Even if all the “scientists” and “historians” in the world were to say that the Catholic faith is not true, I would not believe them.

Good.

Peace

Tim

 

[tuopaolo]

Orogeny:

So you should have no problem with evolution.

I don’t follow. Of course I have a problem with evolution, ESPECIALLY those parts which contradict what the Magisterium has taught.

His Church has stated that evolution is more than a hypothesis. Will you cleave to that?

You are sadly very misinformed. The Church has NOT stated that. It is in NO WAY an official Church teaching that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” I am not aware of ANYONE (except apparently you and vern) who believes that.

I know you in your bias probably won’t listen but let me state for everyone else emphatically that the Church has in no way taught that one must believe that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” You are not cleaving to Christ and His Church any less by not agreeing to the claim that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” You are not being any less a faithful Catholic by not agreeing to the claim that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.”

I am simply astounded that someone would say and suggest such a thing.

 

[Ghosty]

You are sadly very misinformed. The Church has NOT stated that. It is in NO WAY an official Church teaching that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” I am not aware of ANYONE (except apparently you and vern) who believes that.

You’re right that it’s not official Church teaching, because the Church doesn’t make official scientific discoveries. Gravity isn’t official Church teaching either, incidently. I do know someone in the Church who has stated that it’s “more than a hypothesis”, however, and his initials are J.P. and the number 2:

1. Taking into account the state of scientific research and the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical *Humani generis *considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. 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 favor of this theory.

First he recognizes that evolutionism, given certain constraints which all arguing here accept, is equal to the opposite hypothesis, namely literalist creationism, according to a previous Papal encyclical. Then he says that since that time, science has come to recognize evolution as more than a hypothesis. Now this doesn’t come from a Papal Encyclical (and so is only pious opinion), but the standing of evolutionism, within constraints, as equal in merit to literalist creationism does.

 

[tuopaolo]

I’m glad that you see that it is not Church teaching. I hope Tim and vern come to see this also

You are misreading your translation badly though. “equal to that of the opposite hypothesis” does not modify “a serious hypothesis” but rather modifies “study.” So even given your poor translation, it says nothing about any equal “standing” or two opposite propositions being equal. Calling two opposite propositions equal is relativism and our Holy Father is no relativist.

And your translation is contested. The Pope didn’t say that evolution was more than a hypothesis. He said that there was more than one hypothesis.

And a belief that gravity is true is not a “pious opinion.” “Pious opinion” refers to things which flow from Divine Revelation. If the Pope makes a comment about who will in the World Series, that does NOT make his opinion “pious opinion.” :banghead:

Your suggestion that Pope Pius XII thought evolution was equal in merit to creationism is laughable. Go read his encyclical. It says nothing of the sort.

 

[vern_humphrey]

catholic2:

Umm I’m paraphrasing from the Book of Job chapter 40.
It’s God speaking to Job describing Behemoth.

And Behemoth is a Hippopotomus. And could as easily be any other large herbivrous beast – including an aurochs or a mammoth.