Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[catholic2]

vern humphrey:

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

Vern, if you had to grab the subject matter by the tail, it has to be an apatosaurus.

The reason that soft tissue was found in Dinosaur bones is that those bones were fairly recent. Getting fossilized is no easy project. If something died, it would get scavenged, crumble to dust with time and just gone. To be fossilized the creature would have to be buried quickly, put under pressure, and these would normally occur under catastrophic conditions. This is why there are fields of fossilized bones. A whole dinosaur pack (herd/pod/flock? ) would be buried. So most if not all the fossilized bones would be due to the world wide flood that occured about 2,344 BC according to my hand- made chart figured from running the ages from Adam to Noah, and to Christ.

Also, I believe that the bible is “scientific”. I don’t like using the word “scientific” because some people think that word lends credence to what ever it’s attached to. Let’s say that the bible tells the truth, it is factual. Take it literally where you can, except when it is obviously figurative.

 

[tuopaolo]

kolbecenter.org/Fehlner.begin.html#concl

Here is an excerpt from an article by a priest with an ecclesiastically-sanctioned doctorate in theology examining the teaching of the Church and Popes on creation and evolution.

The teaching of the Church on origins from her beginning embraces a body of doctrine consistent and unvarying, not only as regards its general content and tenor, but the explicit formulation of its details as well. The one God is the only God, infinite and omnipotent, Who by His creative power not only made all else in the beginning of time, but ordered that creation, an ordering initially culminating in the formation of Adam and Eve. By the same power and with the same kind of action He is capable of modifying and perfecting the original creation, which in fact He has done in the work of salvation. The doctrine of creation, in general and in all its detail, is intimately bound up with the mystery of salvation. That is why no Catholic may call into question any aspect of the doctrine of creation which in fact the Church believes related to the mystery of salvation without also doubting that latter mystery.

While the Church does not hold that God has revealed all that can be known about His creation, or of that which has been revealed, that the precise sense has in every instance been definitively explained by the Church in the most explicit manner possible, certain points concerning the origin of the world and of the species within it have been so revealed and definitively explained by the Church, either solemnly or in her ordinary Magisterium, in such ways that they may not be questioned or subjected to modification to accommodate human theorizing:

**1. The whole world was created by God ex nihilo in the beginning of time. **

**2. The essential structure or order of the world presupposed for any subsequent activity or development was established by God and admits of no exceptions, except those directly produced by divine intervention, such as that which the Church claims will bring to pass the resurrection of the human body from an inorganic to an organic state, and the new heavens and earth at the end of time. **

**3. The nature of the first man and first woman was made directly by God, by forming the male body out of pre-existing matter, the female body out of the body of the first man, by creating out of nothing a soul for each and then uniting soul to body as its form. At each of these three steps, formation of a body, creation of a soul, and infusion of soul into body, the principal Agent is the Creator, not a creature; hence the process is not a natural development from one species to another, but a divine or miraculous action discontinuous with any possible, merely natural process. This discontinuity accounts for the distinctness and greatness of the human, and of each single human person in the whole of creation, and the special value of man before God. **

4. God made only one man and one woman in this fashion. All others find their origin in descent from these two, human procreation through conception accounting for the origin of the body, divine creation of each soul ex nihilo for the origin of the soul and its infusion into the body conceived. Thus there is but one historical human family, with but a single couple at its beginning, this couple owing existence directly and principally to God as Creator. Only in the second birth of baptism can a human person speak of being born of God.

[snip]

In the matter of origins the Church permits the proposal of theories of evolution as scientific explanations of the origin of the species (never of the world) in only a very restricted way, and on conditions reflecting what she otherwise knows to be the truth, in such wise that any such hypothesis only doubtfully merits the designation evolutionary. Further, because any theory of evolution, provided it can be detached from the Pantheism and Rationalism condemned by the Church, touches points also contained in Revelation and bearing on salvation, the Church regards any proclamation of evolution as a fact on merely scientific grounds as scientific statement which presumes to determine on merely human authority what can only be determined on divine, and thus is tantamount to a counter-religious statement not free of the Rationalism condemned as false by the Church. Nor can the difficulty be avoided by a facile distinction claiming for science the task of solving the “how” of origins and for religion the “Who.” It is precisely because the Catholic faith claims to explain not only Who did it but how He did it (by creation) that we are able to distinguish the world as created from God as uncreated and infinite, and from our knowledge of the finite recognize not only the existence of God, but of the only God with Whom all may be compared, but Who is incomparable to anything else.

 

[vern_humphrey]

catholic2:

Vern, if you had to grab the subject matter by the tail, it has to be an apatosaurus. .

How do you know that?

catholic2:

The reason that soft tissue was found in Dinosaur bones is that those bones were fairly recent. Getting fossilized is no easy project. .

How do you know that?

catholic2:

If something died, it would get scavenged, crumble to dust with time and just gone. To be fossilized the creature would have to be buried quickly, put under pressure, and these would normally occur under catastrophic conditions. This is why there are fields of fossilized bones. A whole dinosaur pack (herd/pod/flock? ) would be buried. So most if not all the fossilized bones would be due to the world wide flood that occured about 2,344 BC according to my hand- made chart figured from running the ages from Adam to Noah, and to Christ…

Wow!!

So explain why Noah, working under God’s personal instructions to put two of each creature onto the Ark, failed to put the T-Rex on board?

God, himself, acted to ensure no species were lost due to the flood. Do you say God failed?

catholic2:

Also, I believe that the bible is “scientific”. I don’t like using the word “scientific” because some people think that word lends credence to what ever it’s attached to. Let’s say that the bible tells the truth, it is factual. Take it literally where you can, except when it is obviously figurative.

The Church does not demand a literal interpretation. And as you say, “take it literally where you can, except when it is obviously figurative.”

Given the extensive fossil record, obviously one place where it is figurative is in the description of Creation in six days.

 

[catholic2]

How do you do multiple quotes?

Vern: 1st quote: Remember that TV series “Fantasy Island”?
Tatoo would say “The plane, The plane” My answer to your first quote is: “The tail, the tail!”

2nd quote: Do you really think that soft tissue and blood cells could remain intact after 70 million years?

3rd quote: Yes, he did put T Rex on board, but it didn’t have to be an adult.

4th quote: The Church would not fault me for taking the six days literally. Yes, 24 hours.

 

[vern_humphrey]

catholic2:

How do you do multiple quotes? .

At the beginning of the quote you see this QUOTE=catholic2 [in brackets like these]. At the end of the quote, you see this /QUOTE [also in brackets like these.

You simply break the text where you want to make a reply by copying and pasting the /QUOTE. You start the next quote block by copying and pasting QUOTE=catholic2

Vern: 1st quote: Remember that TV series “Fantasy Island”?
Tatoo would say “The plane, The plane” My answer to your first quote is: “The tail, the tail!”.

To which I reply, “How do you know? How do you know?”

The tail is described in some tranlations as “like a cedar tree” – which may mean in SHAPE, not in SIZE. The hippopotamus tail fits this description very well – a long smooth shaft and a tuft, like a cedar tree.

catholic2:

2nd quote: Do you really think that soft tissue and blood cells could remain intact after 70 million years?

What does my or your opinion have to do with it? It either is true, or it isn’t. More tests and study are needed to arrive at a conclusion.

However, I live in Stone County, Arkansas. Lots of rocks. I can go down any county road, pry at the sides of a cut, and find fossils – remains of plants and animals that once lived here.

I can go through the county looking for LIVING examples of those fossils and (with rare exceptions), I can’t find them. I can’t find them anywhere in the world.

Similarly, I can look in the fossils for examples of the current plants and animals and not find them.

Clearly, this county (and planet) supported animals that are much different from those now living. There has been a nearly complete turnover of life forms.

If I look deeper into the fossil record, I see many such turnovers.

catholic2:

3rd quote: Yes, he did put T Rex on board, but it didn’t have to be an adult…

Then where are its descendants?

We find the bones of horses, lions, bears and many other animals in association with human artifacts. We’ve found mammoth bones with stone spearheads sticking in the ribs.

Why don’t we find human artifacts in association with dinosaur bones?

Why don’t we find human artifacts in the layers where we find dinosaur bones?

catholic2:

4th quote: The Church would not fault me for taking the six days literally. Yes, 24 hours.

No, but it would not sanction you objecting to someone else believing that it took billions of years. You could not lawfully accuse such a person of violating the Church’s teaching, nor could you claim that your beliefs are Church teaching.

All you can say is YOU believe it, and the Church does not forbid you to believe that way.

 

[Ghosty]

Tuopaulo: If a subject is considered “worthy of study” by the Church, it is not heretical. John Paul II even said it is equally worthy of study as its opposite. The only way I can see that being interpreted is that they are equally grounded in Scripture.

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.

It’s not contested by any native French speakers, only by those who don’t want to accept what the Pope said out of a mistaken belief that it invalidates creationism. You can read Jimmy Akin’s own investigation into the matter here:

cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm

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.”

I never said anything about the Theory of Gravity regarding pious opinion. I only used that term in reference to debates between creationism and evolutionism, both of which are acceptable according to Sacred Tradition at this point.

 

[catholic2]

I think my browser doesn’t allow me to cut and paste (Mozilla Firefox) on this site for some reason.

I guess we can go round and round chasing our tails (pun is intended), but if size was not indicated by the Cedar tree picture, it should have been say a Papayrus reed, or something like that less spectacular.

Dating is a big problem. I live on the slopes of Mauna Kea, and not too far away is Mauna Loa which is an active volcano. Not too long ago, some lava rocks from a recent flow from that volcano was taken to be dated and it was given a date of millions of years.

Also, daters look at the strata through the filter of and old earth. If the data doesn’t fit, it is thrown out. And circular reasoning comes into play too: “How do you know it’s (the strata) that old? Well because it has those kinds of fossils in it. And 'how do you know hold old the fossil is? Well, because it’s in that layer”.

Here’s my hypothesis regarding human artifacts along with the Dinosaurs. After the flood,the climate had changed drastically, reducing the dinosaur population along with many others species many to extinction. Also, as a human being you wouldn’t want to set up house near a T Rex so interaction with dinosaurs would be minimal. And they were probably not tasty? But I think they found dinosaur tracks with human footprints in it.

Now getting further with my personal hypothesis: Along with the changed environment, certain species of plants as well died off, or went through an adaptation (not evolution) so you see the different flora, as well as fauna developing (not evolution) The genes were already in the species to adapt. The genes that gave the species more advantage to survive did just that, so that’s why you see the different looking plants now than in the past. Certain fauna remained unchanged though such as the yuck Cockaroach!, and as ghosty pointed out, the Coelanth.

Now on the last point, I have not sanctioned anyone for believing in the Old Earth theory, have I? I have challenged it though. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. What is beyond challenge, however, IS violating church teaching on
Both sides of the fence.

Gotta go - it’s late afternoon in Hawaii and I got to prepare for evening mass. I sing in the choir. Back at you later. Aloha

 

[vern_humphrey]

catholic2:

I think my browser doesn’t allow me to cut and paste (Mozilla Firefox) on this site for some reason.

I guess we can go round and round chasing our tails (pun is intended), but if size was not indicated by the Cedar tree picture, it should have been say a Papayrus reed, or something like that less spectacular.

No doubt God is grateful to you for correcting Him.

catholic2:

Dating is a big problem. I live on the slopes of Mauna Kea, and not too far away is Mauna Loa which is an active volcano. Not too long ago, some lava rocks from a recent flow from that volcano was taken to be dated and it was given a date of millions of years.

Volcanic rocks are one thing, sedementary rocks are another.

catholic2:

Also, daters look at the strata through the filter of and old earth. If the data doesn’t fit, it is thrown out. And circular reasoning comes into play too: “How do you know it’s (the strata) that old? Well because it has those kinds of fossils in it. And 'how do you know hold old the fossil is? Well, because it’s in that layer”.

Give me an example of data being “thrown out.”

Stratified layers tell us relative ages. If I find a fossil twenty feet down, and under 50 layers of rock, it’s obviously older than one I found in the top layer.

Now, given the number of times life forms have “turned over” just in my own county – how old would YOU say the oldest are?

catholic2:

Here’s my hypothesis regarding human artifacts along with the Dinosaurs. After the flood,the climate had changed drastically,

How do you know that?

catholic2:

reducing the dinosaur population along with many others species many to extinction.

How would Man and other animals survive when the dinosaurs died?

And that still doesn’t explain how we find no human remains or artifacts anywhere near the strate where we find dinousaurs. Did the dinousaurs somehow die and their corpses burrow through many layers of rock to get where we find them today?

catholic2:

Also, as a human being you wouldn’t want to set up house near a T Rex so interaction with dinosaurs would be minimal. And they were probably not tasty? But I think they found dinosaur tracks with human footprints in it.

No, they didn’t – in some dinosaurs the footprint is vaguely man-like. But there are no human footprints associated with dinosaur prints.

Nor are there any human remains in the same strate as dinosaurs. They wouldn’t have had to live NEAR dinosaurs to leave remains in the same strate IF they lived at the same TIME.

catholic2:

Now getting further with my personal hypothesis: Along with the changed environment,

What change in the environment? What caused it? What’s your evidence for it?

catholic2:

certain species of plants as well died off, or went through an adaptation (not evolution) so you see the different flora, as well as fauna developing (not evolution)

How is “adaptation” different from “evolution?”

catholic2:

The genes were already in the species to adapt. The genes that gave the species more advantage to survive did just that, so that’s why you see the different looking plants now than in the past.

That explanation is called “The Theory of Evolution.”

catholic2:

Certain fauna remained unchanged though such as the yuck Cockaroach!, and as ghosty pointed out, the Coelanth. .

Which is entirely in keeping with the theory of evolution.

 

[Ghosty]

Volcanic rocks are one thing, sedementary rocks are another.

Indeed! The gases and other factors in volcanic rock make them completely unreliable for dating using the methods used on sedimentary rocks.

 

[tuopaolo]

Ghosty:

The only way I can see that being interpreted is that they are equally grounded in Scripture.

This is just crazy! Maybe if you read the article I linked to by the priest with the ecclesiastically-sanctioned doctorate in theology, you’ll see the light It examines Church teaching in a fair and balanced manner.

It’s not contested by any native French speakers, only by those who don’t want to accept what the Pope said out of a mistaken belief that it invalidates creationism.

How do you know it’s not contested by any native French speakers? Are you saying that not ONE single Frenchman in France contests it? Have you asked every single Frenchman for her opinion? I bet it is contested by at least some Frenchmen.

I never said anything about the Theory of Gravity regarding pious opinion. I only used that term in reference to debates between creationism and evolutionism, both of which are acceptable according to Sacred Tradition at this point.

Sacred Tradition does not change! Something cannot at one point be acceptable “according to Sacred Tradition” while at another point be unacceptable “according to Sacred Tradition.” :banghead:

I thought you said evolution was a “pious opinion” and that evolution and gravity were the same kind of thing. Neither evolution nor gravity is a “pious opinion.”

 

[catholic2]

OK one more thing before we get to the tail end. God was telling Job of the outstanding atributes of Behemoth, and one of those outstanding atributes was the tail! If it had a piglywigly tail like a Hippopatomus, do you think it would have even been mentioned? The tail was like a cedar - big, long and tapered. Voila! a dinosaur.

Climate Change: The water canopy mentioned in scripture dissapeared after the flood. People started living shorter lives. The one-time single land mass divided into the various continents. New mountain ranges appeared. Wind, water currents, all were affected. That’s why you find coal deposits in Antarctica, and sea shells on mountain tops.

I’ll have to do some digging to come up with specifics on the other issues. Need some time, maybe a lot of time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

catholic2:

OK one more thing before we get to the tail end. God was telling Job of the outstanding atributes of Behemoth, and one of those outstanding atributes was the tail! If it had a piglywigly tail like a Hippopatomus, do you think it would have even been mentioned? The tail was like a cedar - big, long and tapered. Voila! a dinosaur…

Have you ever seen a wild hippopotamus? they are dangerous, and when they charge, the tail stands erect – it’s nothing like a pig’s curly tail when that happens.

Men with spears who faced hippopotamii would never think of the tail that way.

catholic2:

Climate Change: The water canopy mentioned in scripture dissapeared after the flood. People started living shorter lives. The one-time single land mass divided into the various continents. New mountain ranges appeared. Wind, water currents, all were affected. That’s why you find coal deposits in Antarctica, and sea shells on mountain tops…

If you look at the maps in your bible, you will see that they do NOT show a single land mass. And if you examine the geographical information in the Bible, you see it conforms quite closely to the modern maps.

So how do you figure there was a single land mass during Biblical times?

 

[Norwich]

Ghosty:

Indeed! The gases and other factors in volcanic rock make them completely unreliable for dating using the methods used on sedimentary rocks.

Wrong.

All igneous rocks are very easily datable, in fact more accurately datable than sedimentary rocks. The earths magnetic pole moves, molten volcanic rock is magnetic (it all has some iron within it) In its molten state the iron particles will always point to magnetic north, as we can predict both forwards and backwards the actual point of magnetic north at any particular time we can also very easily establish when igneous rocks were formed and solidified.

p.s. At a number of time in the past the poles were reversed, i.e. north was south and south was north, try explaining that one in the light of some of your explanations when you try to decry the reality of evolution and time scales.

Personally Vern I would give it up, your arguing with 19th century idiots. As far as they are concerned the sun still travels around the earth and Copernicus was a heretic. The captain of the Beagle argued the same, finished up being broken and insane, seems to be habit forming!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Norwich:

Wrong.

All igneous rocks are very easily datable, in fact more accurately datable than sedimentary rocks. The earths magnetic pole moves, molten volcanic rock is magnetic (it all has some iron within it) In its molten state the iron particles will always point to magnetic north, as we can predict both forwards and backwards the actual point of magnetic north at any particular time we can also very easily establish when igneous rocks were formed and solidified.

p.s. At a number of time in the past the poles were reversed, i.e. north was south and south was north, try explaining that one in the light of some of your explanations when you try to decry the reality of evolution and time scales.

Personally Vern I would give it up, your arguing with 19th century idiots. As far as they are concerned the sun still travels around the earth and Copernicus was a heretic. The captain of the Beagle argued the same, finished up being broken and insane, seems to be habit forming!

I worry about people who base their faith on issues like “Creation Science.” They have to go to great lengths to keep it from collapsing.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

vern humphrey:

Have you ever seen a wild hippopotamus? they are dangerous, and when they charge, the tail stands erect – it’s nothing like a pig’s curly tail when that happens.

Yes, that’s true. Same thing with a warthog or a wild boar, the long tail is held straight up while running or charging. (If you’ve ever been on a boar hunt, those things are fast and dangerous!).

The curly cue tail is something you see on a domesticated pig or hog on a farm or as a pet.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Kevin Walker:

Yes, that’s true. Same thing with a warthog or a wild boar, the long tail is held straight up while running or charging. (If you’ve ever been on a boar hunt, those things are fast and dangerous!).

The curly cue tail is something you see on a domesticated pig or hog on a farm or as a pet.

Wild hippos feed ashore, making trails through the brush from the water to their feeding grounds. A few years back, someone wrote an article about hunting hippos by waiting along one of those trails with a handgun.

Jeff Cooper (a man who is definitely not a pantywaist) commented that while it might be all right for some people, he couldn’t see doing it himself.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Ghosty]

Sacred Tradition does not change! Something cannot at one point be acceptable “according to Sacred Tradition” while at another point be unacceptable “according to Sacred Tradition.”

Our understanding of Sacred Tradition deepens with time, however. No one was excommunicated for not believing in Papal Infallibility before the concept was defined as Doctrine. And no one was excommunicated for not believing in the Immaculate Conception of Mary before it was defined. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have never believed in the Immaculate Conception, yet they were in union with us for over 1000 years. You need to get your facts straight. When I say “at this point”, this is what I’m refering to, specifically because the Church hasn’t defined these matters yet.

This is just crazy! Maybe if you read the article I linked to by the priest with the ecclesiastically-sanctioned doctorate in theology, you’ll see the light It examines Church teaching in a fair and balanced manner.

Most heretical Jesuits also have such degrees. Unless his writtings have Nihil Obstat, they’re actually less sanctioned than Catholic Answer’s own tracts on the subject, which tell us that evolution is acceptable for Catholics.

How do you know it’s not contested by any native French speakers? Are you saying that not ONE single Frenchman in France contests it? Have you asked every single Frenchman for her opinion? I bet it is contested by at least some Frenchmen.

Should I preface it with “no native French speakers that I’ve seen”? Would that make you happier, or are you just attacking some common hyperbole because you can’t back up your own contention?

Norwich: I was talking specifically about sedimentary dating techniques, such as carbon dating. Notice I said “using the methods used on sedimentary rocks”. I agree completely with you, actually. It’s just that most people who bring up the dating problems with volcanic rock are talking specifically about things like carbon dating. That’s what I was addressing.

 

[Norwich]

Ghosty:

Norwich: I was talking specifically about sedimentary dating techniques, such as carbon dating. Notice I said “using the methods used on sedimentary rocks”. I agree completely with you, actually. It’s just that most people who bring up the dating problems with volcanic rock are talking specifically about things like carbon dating. That’s what I was addressing.

Carbon dating of sedimentary rocks is notoriously innacurate. Most dating is done by “Comparative Dating” against Ignious rocks and has worked reasonably well. Some work has been done on dating via sedimentary phosphate nodules and this has been shown to be quite effective. The interesting point is that all phosphate nodules are only formed in a biological environment, i.e. fishes and animals (Micro crustaceans actually, or better still coprilite (crustacean extrement to put it bluntly)), this is true for biogenesis, carbon biogenesis or precipitation formation and all of them date rocks far beyond the dates used by the so called creationists. Tends to be a bit difficult for them to explain that one so they tend to ignore it and say it never happened. Bit like ostriches really!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Norwich:

Carbon dating of sedimentary rocks is notoriously innacurate. Most dating is done by “Comparative Dating” against Ignious rocks and has worked reasonably well. Some work has been done on dating via sedimentary phosphate nodules and this has been shown to be quite effective. The interesting point is that all phosphate nodules are only formed in a biological environment, i.e. fishes and animals (Micro crustaceans actually, or better still coprilite (crustacean extrement to put it bluntly)), this is true for biogenesis, carbon biogenesis or precipitation formation and all of them date rocks far beyond the dates used by the so called creationists. Tends to be a bit difficult for them to explain that one so they tend to ignore it and say it never happened. Bit like ostriches really!!

It’s a matter of self-selection. People who have the education and background to objectively evaluate scientific data and papers find that the evidence presented is persuasive.

That leaves people who do NOT have the education and background to objectively evaluate scientific data and papers, and many of them are easily deceved by pseudo-science and charlatans.

 

[Ghosty]

Interesting info, Norwich. Thanks for the post!