https://constitution.com/creationist-wi ... alifornia/A creationist scholar recently received a six-figure settlement from California State University Northridge, a payout that resolved a 2-year-old lawsuit that alleged the scholar had been fired after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops horn and publishing his findings.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8113000020Mark published an article on the soft tissue in a December issue of the prestigious secular journal Acta Histochenica. The title of his article was ‘Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus.’
Mark’s paper was strictly a science paper and made no mention or reference to his religion, the Bible or the possible age of the Triceratops horn. However, it is obvious to any rational person that soft tissues and beautiful cells he found could not be millions of years old.
Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus
Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.
LineInTheSand TwoCentsBob • 2 years ago
That's because carbon-14 dating only measures up to 60,000 years. There are multiple types of dating methods to determine different ages. If you used C14 dating on a dinosaur bone, it would give you a false reading. This is a huge hangup for so many creationists. If they'd do a bit of research, they'd find that not everything is a conspiracy.
tdasw LineInTheSand • 2 years ago
@ LineInTheSand Sorry do better research. If you use C14 dating on a dinosaur bone IF IT WAS million years old you would still get accurate reading because it would have been ZERO C14. The very fact that there is plethora of C14 in dinosaur bones (and in coal as well) proves scientifically that both are much, much younger that conventional dating would ascribe to them.
Blessings - Stanislaw, Gdansk, Poland
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests