It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientist find soft tissue of T-Rex

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 09:03 PM
Despite all the radiation that will have hit the DNA, odds are it was pretty complex to begin with, and thus some (a large some) will stay intact, near perfectly.

As I am currently eating bacon and eggs, I'm perfectly content. I'll take my T-Rex live, please. Oh, and with collar.

[edit on 3/25/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Me, I'm still straddling the fence, with inconsistencies piling up on both sides (creation and evolution). You call that a concrete conclusion?

An earlier post also pointed out that soft tissue and DNA aren't supposed to be around after 70 million years due to radioactive decay. I'm just stating that this is a new challenge for science to explain how it happened.

And if they can't, score one for creation.

I'm not a creationist per se, I merely passed on what I've heard from the creationist viewpoint.

Personally, I think that both viewpoints (creation and evolution) have elements of truth to them. The timeframes just seem whack to me.

But I'll let a real scientist figure that out for me.

Is that ok with you Anubis?

Once again. Through science, these inconsistencies will be researched and answered accordingly. Religion on the other hand seeks to limit the number of questions it wants to answer whenever there's a discrepancy with the Bible and real world facts.

The fact that tissue has lasted this long is a new problem that has arisen. Im sure biologists and those that study the breakdown of organic matter will have to rewrite their theories as to how it happened. Did scientists believe that there was abundant life at the deepest and darkest parts of the ocean? Who could have guessed that there would be animals that lived right next to extremely hot and chemically dangerous exhaust tubes at the bottom of the ocean? Discoveries are made and then theories are developed as to how things happened the way they did.

Think about it. We're a relatively young species compared to some other animals on this planet. There are things that we understand and then theres much that we do not. Just because we don't understand it now doesn't mean that religion or creationism had a place in our beginnings. Throughout history, whenever peoples witnessed an unusual phenomena or something unexplainable, they usually concluded that it was a sign from God or something with religious implications. Religion doesn't foster the need to find answers, science does.

[edit on 26-3-2005 by _Anubis_]

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:05 PM
That doesn't mean you can't have faith in God and an ordered universe according to science at the same time. Have you heard of the theory of intelligent design? Maybe God was part genetic engineer.

I agree with you that we as a modern society have a lot of catching up to do as far as successfully applied knowledge goes.

Science may eventually explain God, but it will never explain Him away.

Happy Easter. He is risen!

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:39 PM
My problem with religion is that there is no way for science to counter it. You can always say "Yeah, ok, that is because God made it that way" and there is never any way for science to deal with that. Science has holes, lots of holes. Science is mostly holes, in fact, with very little solid fact. Religion is solid, rock hard, and impenetrable.

I can't accept that. And that's why they call it 'Faith.'

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:51 PM
Well true science has holes and i do believe god made it in such a way. I do not believe religion is as solid as a rock at least islam isnt. There are many different ways to interpet the qu'ran.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Well true science has holes and i do believe god made it in such a way. I do not believe religion is as solid as a rock at least islam isnt. There are many different ways to interpet the qu'ran.

I meant it as in despite (m)any inadequacies within any and every religion, you cannot argue with the fact that "God made it that way" because that can always trump any proof otherwise.

Oh, and, err, It's really cool about the T-Rex tissue.
I can't wait for an update!

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:25 PM
True but you also need to remember that we cannot proof that god exists.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:28 PM
If you're going to argue God, please take it to the religion forum.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:37 PM
Gosh with a little fancy DNA manipulation we could have our very own mini pet T-Rex's

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Gosh with a little fancy DNA manipulation we could have our very own mini pet T-Rex's

Emphasis on the fancy...

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 05:03 PM
I want to see science explain the soft tissue and dna remnants in the T-Rex bone. I am all about empirical proof and successfully applied knowledge. It takes strong intellect and great character to overcome the physical and ethical challenges of momentous discoveries. Let's get to the bottom of things, for the betterment of all mankind. By all means. The creation thing to me is just a dating/timeframe issue.

Science - Nature

Religion - God

Oil - Water

different things, not to be confused. please forgive, off to rf

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I want to see science explain the soft tissue and dna remnants in the T-Rex bone.

Then you should look to the scientific paper on this find and the other papers where other organic materials have been found.

I agree with your last statment, nature and religion are two different things that shouldn't be mixed, like oil and water. Many scientists have faith in one religious system or another. Heck, the people that were around for the Renaissance and Enlightenment were primarily christians of one sort or another, and the 'Geologic Column' was described long before Darwin was around One can be religious and still look at evidence and say 'what can we logically say about this evidence and how it relates to everything we have observed' without having to bring god into it.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:43 PM
What I mean is I am really pulling for science to do this, not so much challenging it to fail in the process. And of course I will follow the scientific papers on the find, who knows, it could re-write the books on research paleontology.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am all for science on and research into all subjects. I consider it the tip of the spear of knowledge.

deny intolerance! (is that how it goes?)

[edit on 26-3-2005 by Icarus Rising]


posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 03:05 AM
man if they get to ever clone a T-rex in my lifetime, im moving underground. I watched jurassic park 1, 2 and some of 3 and im not going to be around when the # hits the fan

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:14 AM
It is when great discoveries are made and new found knowledge is applied that moral fiber and commitment to ethical science in doings what 's best for nature and mankind becomes paramount to us all. Even more important is not doing what isn't best for nature and mankind. It would be a shame for it to end up being best for nature if mankind took a big step backward again. We have come too far to let that happen!

It's not up to me to decide what 'best for nature and mankind' is. It is up to us all. Thats why we need a system of shared values that helps us make good decisions.

I hope we end up with cures for cancer and aging and other medical advances from this find, as well as a richer, deeper, and fuller understanding of earth history, rather than dinosaur theme parks and pets. Not to mention T-Rex eggs and bacon.

I hope I'm not pooping on your parade, I don't think anyone is really serious about that stuff anyway.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:39 AM
Personally, I hope for longer lives, cured cancer, so we can go to the dino-parks!

I don't think nature and science shouldn't be combined. Science benefits eternally from nature, and is in fact where it got its roots. A lot of science these days is trying to mimic things we find in nature, to better our own lives. Spider threads, sea-shells, dinosaur DNA, to name a few. And don't forget that what we do with science has a huge effect on nature. Whether it's dropping an Atomic bomb or two, or saving the whales, what science fosters is felt first by nature.

The two are forever intwined, never doubt that.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:58 AM

You are cracking me up! Humor is good for the soul, and it is hard to frown when you are 150 years old and eating an ice cream cone at a dinosaur theme park. I haven't laughed enough lately.

Combine. Confuse. What's the difference? Who cares?

That does it! No more quotes for you.


posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:16 AM
We need to stay on top of this....I wonder how long it will take till someone actually does something with it, or tries to....

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:08 AM
i'm pretty sure this was on atsnn well it was about scientest recovering a tissue

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:12 PM
Well, it is a spectecular finding, and nobody will stop the T-rex from evolving...

But the DNA of huge plants would even save the World!!

I am curiously waiting for the results of this scientific wonder...

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in