Early Cretaceous (150 million to 100 million years old) specimens.....with "flesh"

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There is no difference between "main stream" science or whatever else. Science is science, a method of fact gathering. It's not a religious cult as badly as you want it to be. Now if you want to talk about government or corporate funding of certain sciences then that's a completely different topic. Lay people should never ever tell a scientist they are wrong about science. I'm not about to go argue against calculus when my understanding of math hasn't surpassed Geometry. I'm not going to tell a master chef how to cook his food. I'm not going to tell an auto mechanic how to fix my car. See what I'm getting at? I don't remember people being called heretics for suggesting dinosaurs could be warm blooded either. Cold blooded made the most sense based on what was known at the time. But that's how science works. It adjusts when new evidence is found. Scientists are constantly challenging the status quo, and if you didn't know that you aren't paying attention. It has nothing to do with ego it has to do with knowledge of how things work.

All I have seen is claims it's simply "rare', with no real explanation as to WHY.

Didn't you check out any of the links or videos that were posted?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

appologies for delay - the thread " disappeared " from my subscription list

what of the " fast freeze " scenario ????????????????

unless you are claiming a very short timeline

then the precence of a glacier at the site in the 21st century is of little relevance

yes the sample COULD have been frozen at one point - but there is no evidence for or against this premise

lastly - how does the freezing premise involve " the biblical flood " ??????

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TinfoilTP

appologies for delay - the thread " disappeared " from my subscription list

what of the " fast freeze " scenario ????????????????

unless you are claiming a very short timeline

then the precence of a glacier at the site in the 21st century is of little relevance

yes the sample COULD have been frozen at one point - but there is no evidence for or against this premise

lastly - how does the freezing premise involve " the biblical flood " ??????

That's easy,
Proponents for biblical flood believe that a high percentage cloud coverage, canopy, precipitated thereby changing, ie lowering, the amount of greenhouse gas naturally trapped in the atmosphere thereafter. lower altitudes than previously would therefor become glaciated afterwards.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

And unfortunately zero evidence of this alleged ice canopy exists, plus it's been demonstrated by scientists that life (in particular HUMAN life) could not survive being under an ice canopy based on how much water is necessary for a global flood. The pressure is too high.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There is no difference between "main stream" science or whatever else. Science is science, a method of fact gathering. It's not a religious cult as badly as you want it to be.

Tell that to the scientists that claim anyone in favor of a theory they don't like is not a "real scientist".

originally posted by: Barcs
Now if you want to talk about government or corporate funding of certain sciences then that's a completely different topic. Lay people should never ever tell a scientist they are wrong about science. I'm not about to go argue against calculus when my understanding of math hasn't surpassed Geometry. I'm not going to tell a master chef how to cook his food. I'm not going to tell an auto mechanic how to fix my car. See what I'm getting at? I don't remember people being called heretics for suggesting dinosaurs could be warm blooded either. Cold blooded made the most sense based on what was known at the time. But that's how science works. It adjusts when new evidence is found. Scientists are constantly challenging the status quo, and if you didn't know that you aren't paying attention. It has nothing to do with ego it has to do with knowledge of how things work.

That was the attitude, and the feuding went on for some time over that issue. We see that in other cases as well. Ego has and does play a huge part in such debates, and that's clear if you do the reading. That's been the reality for some years. Science may adjust, but it can take a long time in many cases.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It's not about ego, it's about the physical objective evidence. Obviously, yes, somebody is going to get annoyed when they work in a field of science for 30 years and then some guy off the street tells them the science is wrong without even addressing any of it or even formulating a compelling argument, and haven't having done a single piece of scientific research or experimentation. Scientists have every right to make fun of somebody like that. You want to talk about people blindly following the status quo, look no further than religion. Science follows evidence, not scientists. The scientists do the experiments, but the raw data cannot be argued with unless you decided to do the experiment yourself. Having a basic understanding of something before you attack it, is kind of a requirement when challenging science. No creationists ever do this. They bring up fallacies and broad generalizations about the theory that never address the science, and quite frankly, that's intellectually dishonest. The science has nothing to do with ego and if a scientist makes a discovery, he or she has every right to be proud of it.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Mainstream science is more about the status quo for too many, as opposed to real and honest research. Look how long it took for the old ideas about dinosaurs to change.

I had no idea you were an expert on mainstream science, not to mention dinosaurs. And fossils.

Actually, I believe you know absolutely nothing on any of these subjects. Care to take a little test and prove me wrong?

No, thought not.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: TinfoilTP

And unfortunately zero evidence of this alleged ice canopy exists, plus it's been demonstrated by scientists that life (in particular HUMAN life) could not survive being under an ice canopy based on how much water is necessary for a global flood. The pressure is too high.

Where'd you get ice canopy from? I don't see it anywhere in any post in this thread.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

My bad, you said vapor canopy, not ice. Either way that would have to be a REALLY thick cloud of vapor, and it would probably turn the earth into a Venus-like atmosphere if it was really that thick. Atmospheric pressure would become a big issue for humans and most mammals.

www.talkorigins.org...

Here's a good link that debunks that idea. That amount of vapor in some kind of canopy or cloud around the earth would increase atmospheric pressure some 900x. 600 times if you don't count flooding as high as Everest. Either way fatal to most mammals.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It's not about ego, it's about the physical objective evidence. Obviously, yes, somebody is going to get annoyed when they work in a field of science for 30 years and then some guy off the street tells them the science is wrong without even addressing any of it or even formulating a compelling argument, and haven't having done a single piece of scientific research or experimentation. Scientists have every right to make fun of somebody like that. You want to talk about people blindly following the status quo, look no further than religion. Science follows evidence, not scientists. The scientists do the experiments, but the raw data cannot be argued with unless you decided to do the experiment yourself. Having a basic understanding of something before you attack it, is kind of a requirement when challenging science. No creationists ever do this. They bring up fallacies and broad generalizations about the theory that never address the science, and quite frankly, that's intellectually dishonest. The science has nothing to do with ego and if a scientist makes a discovery, he or she has every right to be proud of it.

Not about ego? That's a laugh! That's exactly what it's about for a lot of scientists. Their long-held ideas MUST be considered right. Any dissent MUST be silenced, preferably with the dissenter run out of academia in disgrace. We aren't talking "some guy off the street", either; we are talking scientists that simply dare to go against the establishment, and propose things that some don't like. Valid experiments can be ignored, papers with valid data from experienced scientists swept under the rug, etc. Do you have any idea how much fraud there has been with various fossils???

Claiming that "no creationists" have any understanding of the principles, or do any experimentation, is flat out BS. There are scientists who aren't religious who believe there must be some intelligent designer. Fallacies and intellectual dishonesty go hand in hand with the evolution/big bang crowd. Example, showing a model of "Lucy" in a museum with human-looking feet, which that animal didn't have.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I had no idea you were an expert on mainstream science, not to mention dinosaurs. And fossils.

Actually, I believe you know absolutely nothing on any of these subjects. Care to take a little test and prove me wrong?

No, thought not.

I don[t care what you know. I don't share details about my personal life on an open internet forum. If you do, that's your issue. I know plenty about the topics, but I am not playing some stupid little game with someone that can't formulate an argument, and thus resorts to trying to belittle the opposition. That's a logic fallacy, and a sign of someone that just lost the debate. Want your consolation cookie now?

Environmental conditions such as extreme cold, salinity (saltiness), acidity, and aridity (dryness) can all result in natural mummification.

This case is nothing special when it comes to preserving "flesh" through natural mummification...

Directly from the article linked....it says

These "fish lizards" probably hunted in an underwater canyon near the coastline, pursuing a diet of squidlike animals and fish.... Occasionally, there would have been mudflows that cascaded into the water like an avalanche, and the researchers think these mudflows killed the ichthyosaurs..... The animals likely became disoriented and drowned, getting sucked into the deep sea, where their bodies were entombed in the sediment....

So what kind of environment do we have...(glacier)extreme cold, check....(sea water) salinity, check....on top of that we know that time period was highly volcanic....which may have caused...(from the article)

A global depletion of oxygen in the oceans, possibly due to volcanism....

Sounds like a great scenario for mummification if you ask me...in fact it's very close to the environment that bog bodies are found in....(a combination of acidic water, cold temperatures, and lack of oxygen are enough to preserve the tissue)...In this case, a combination of salinity, cold temperatures and lack of oxygen.

I'm no expert and I openly admit that...but I feel as though there is nothing spectacular about this scenario...it seems to fit the criterion quite well...

A2D

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Not about ego? That's a laugh! That's exactly what it's about for a lot of scientists. Their long-held ideas MUST be considered right. Any dissent MUST be silenced, preferably with the dissenter run out of academia in disgrace. We aren't talking "some guy off the street", either; we are talking scientists that simply dare to go against the establishment, and propose things that some don't like. Valid experiments can be ignored, papers with valid data from experienced scientists swept under the rug, etc. Do you have any idea how much fraud there has been with various fossils???

Can you please give me some examples of science experiments that have been ignored or swept under the rug? Long held ideas are challenged all of the time, but nobody is going to try to say the earth isn't round, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that gravity doesn't exist, or that evolution is false, because those are all proven things. Yeah, if somebody still thinks the earth is flat, they should be ridiculed because it's incredibly stupid. Scientific theories don't become theories until solid verifiable evidence that is testable and repeatable emerges. Once that happens, you fill in the gaps with other facts and hypotheses. Quite often the hypotheses are falsified and then kept out of the theory, but if they are verified they become part of it.,

Claiming that "no creationists" have any understanding of the principles, or do any experimentation, is flat out BS. There are scientists who aren't religious who believe there must be some intelligent designer. Fallacies and intellectual dishonesty go hand in hand with the evolution/big bang crowd. Example, showing a model of "Lucy" in a museum with human-looking feet, which that animal didn't have.

I didn't say "no creationists" have understanding of evolution. Most of the ones that post in this section attacking it fit the bill, however. Did the Lucy specimen not get updated when more fossils were found? Was it not a scientist challenging the current model that made that change?

I don[t care what you know. I don't share details about my personal life on an open internet forum. If you do, that's your issue. I know plenty about the topics, but I am not playing some stupid little game with someone that can't formulate an argument, and thus resorts to trying to belittle the opposition. That's a logic fallacy, and a sign of someone that just lost the debate. Want your consolation cookie now?

Um, you haven't provided a single argument in favor of your case yet. You have insulted scientists and insinuated that they all are nothing but ego maniacs with no evidence. We know that some people will lie cheat and steal to make a name for themselves. This is pretty rare in the grand scheme of science however. But unless you've got an actual argument against evolution you are just beating a dead horse.

originally posted by: Barcs
Can you please give me some examples of science experiments that have been ignored or swept under the rug? Long held ideas are challenged all of the time, but nobody is going to try to say the earth isn't round, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that gravity doesn't exist, or that evolution is false, because those are all proven things. Yeah, if somebody still thinks the earth is flat, they should be ridiculed because it's incredibly stupid. Scientific theories don't become theories until solid verifiable evidence that is testable and repeatable emerges. Once that happens, you fill in the gaps with other facts and hypotheses. Quite often the hypotheses are falsified and then kept out of the theory, but if they are verified they become part of it.,

No, because this is already way off track for the thread. If you want to discuss elsewhere, post one, and OM me, and we can do it there. My statement was about this discovery, and expanding that to all of science is too far off topic. Instead, perhaps you can explain what is being done in such cases as this to determine how this can happen.

As for the rest, I am not engaging in a debate on evolution vs. creation here, either. Again, off topic.

Explain, if you wish, why and how you think the soft tissues survived as they did.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

No, because this is already way off track for the thread. If you want to discuss elsewhere, post one, and OM me, and we can do it there. My statement was about this discovery, and expanding that to all of science is too far off topic. Instead, perhaps you can explain what is being done in such cases as this to determine how this can happen.

Give me a break. 1. It's actually not off topic at all for the thread. To put it in context, there are valid claims and the data to back it all up that made by scientists. Your contention is that it isn't possible and you made u substantiated claims. 2. When you make unsubstantiated claims and refuse to provide appropriate citations your claims is just that, your claim, your personal opinion yet you are willing to state it as fact and then refuse to support your argument. Why bring things up in the first p,ace if you are u willing or u able to support your claims?

As for the rest, I am not engaging in a debate on evolution vs. creation here, either. Again, off topic.

Things are always off topic when people get backed I t a corner and don't have the answer or available citations to back up whatever claim they are stating as fact

Explain, if you wish, why and how you think the soft tissues survived as they did.

Hasn't that point been addressed repeatedly throughout this thread? Or are you insisting on being willfully ignorant to the facts presented because they don't jive with how you want the world to be? Kind of like your claims regarding A. Afarensis not having the feet depicted in museums as if scientists are all liars and scam artists trying to ruin the minds of the good people of the world. It's just a crock of BS and anyone who can read or write should be able to discern that upon reviewing the evidence. Lucy isn't the only specimen of A Afarensis that is known to anthropologists/paleontologists. While she is the most compete single specimen, she isn't the only and while she was missing some key fossils, other specimens have been discovered that DO have those portions intact and we can see quite clearly from the fossils alone that Lucy and her kin walked upright at least part of the time. And that doesn't even get into the Laetoli footprints that are nearly indistinguishable from those of modern humans.

If you're going to call the science out then you should be prepared to defend your position and not fall back on excuses. Either you have supporting citations to address your own claims or their veracity is nonexistent and all it is is your opinion. K

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Explain, if you wish, why and how you think the soft tissues survived as they did.

It has been said a few times already, but I'll say it again for your sake....

NO SOFT TISSUE SURVIVED - IT IS A FOSSIL LIKE THE REST OF THE ANIMAL.

USUALLY, BEFORE FOSSILISATION CAN OCCUR, THE SOFT TISSUE IS EATEN OR DECOMPOSED BY ANIMALS AND BACTERIA, BUT IN SOME RARE CASES, SUCH AS AN AVALANCHE, OR MUD FLOW, OR VOLCANO ETC, THE SOFT TISSUE CAN AVOID BEING DECAYED BEFORE FOSSILISATION OCCURS, IN WHICH CASE EVIDENCE OF SUCH EXISTS ALONGSIDE TRADITIONAL FOSSILISED BONE

EDIT: It even says as much in the OP article - Icthyasaurs preserved by ancient mudslide

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
*snip*

Explain, if you wish, why and how you think the soft tissues survived as they did.

Hasn't that point been addressed repeatedly throughout this thread? Or are you insisting on being willfully ignorant to the facts presented because they don't jive with how you want the world to be? Kind of like your claims regarding A. Afarensis not having the feet depicted in museums as if scientists are all liars and scam artists trying to ruin the minds of the good people of the world. It's just a crock of BS and anyone who can read or write should be able to discern that upon reviewing the evidence. Lucy isn't the only specimen of A Afarensis that is known to anthropologists/paleontologists. While she is the most compete single specimen, she isn't the only and while she was missing some key fossils, other specimens have been discovered that DO have those portions intact and we can see quite clearly from the fossils alone that Lucy and her kin walked upright at least part of the time. And that doesn't even get into the Laetoli footprints that are nearly indistinguishable from those of modern humans.

If you're going to call the science out then you should be prepared to defend your position and not fall back on excuses. Either you have supporting citations to address your own claims or their veracity is nonexistent and all it is is your opinion. K

You haven't offered any such explanation in your posts to me. Telling someone to look elsewhere in a thread is a nice tactic for those unwilling to offer evidence.

The case of Lucy is a clear case of deliberate misrepresentation. Lucy is an ape, not some "early human", and there is no evidence that she is any sort of "early human". None. She was an animal that walked on her knuckles. Has the exhibit in the St. Louis Zoo that shows her with human-like feet and hands been corrected? Not last I heard! That's deliberate deception. She clearly could not have made the footprints that scientists claim are associated with her. Those look identical to footprints of human children. Fully human.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Explain, if you wish, why and how you think the soft tissues survived as they did.

It has been said a few times already, but I'll say it again for your sake....

NO SOFT TISSUE SURVIVED - IT IS A FOSSIL LIKE THE REST OF THE ANIMAL.

USUALLY, BEFORE FOSSILISATION CAN OCCUR, THE SOFT TISSUE IS EATEN OR DECOMPOSED BY ANIMALS AND BACTERIA, BUT IN SOME RARE CASES, SUCH AS AN AVALANCHE, OR MUD FLOW, OR VOLCANO ETC, THE SOFT TISSUE CAN AVOID BEING DECAYED BEFORE FOSSILISATION OCCURS, IN WHICH CASE EVIDENCE OF SUCH EXISTS ALONGSIDE TRADITIONAL FOSSILISED BONE

EDIT: It even says as much in the OP article - Icthyasaurs preserved by ancient mudslide

Posting in bold caps doesn't make your statement any more valid by way of "explanation". The point people are making, which has yet to be explained, is that the claim that a mud slide or whatever isn't enough to explain this. Those happen all the time, and yet we don't see soft tissue in cases where fossils are formed under those conditions. Mud flow is common with floods, and one way we do see fossils, but most have no soft tissue preserved. Claiming that is the explanation doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Posting in bold caps doesn't make your statement any more valid by way of "explanation". The point people are making, which has yet to be explained, is that the claim that a mud slide or whatever isn't enough to explain this. .

Considering it has been explained several times already, including in the OP, the bold caps was to make it obvious for you so there can be no claims of "not seeing it" - it worked, you saw it

Those happen all the time, and yet we don't see soft tissue in cases where fossils are formed under those conditions. Mud flow is common with floods, and one way we do see fossils, but most have no soft tissue preserved. Claiming that is the explanation doesn't cut it

Emphasis mine - key word here, most. Some do end up preserving the soft tissue in the fossil record, ergo, the explanation is fine. It all depends on the exact nature of the burial and the prevailing conditions at the time - it says in the article (again.....) that the Ichthyosaurs were caught in a mud flow and swept into deeper water, which is colder and more anoxic, lending to better preservation of soft tissue in the fossil.

A perfectly valid and reasonable explanation and certainly better than anything you have or can come up with.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Astyanax
Care to take a little test and prove me wrong?

LadyGreenEyes
I don't share details about my personal life on an open internet forum.

Such details would not be part of the test. I should have thought that was obvious.

LadyGreenEyes
I am not playing some stupid little game

Are you sure?