Replies

Continue your twisting and lying!

Mary Schweitzer said that she dissolved bone in acid yielding soft tissue. The use of the term ‘fossil’ seems to throw your minimal cognition. In this case it was used not to declare fossilization, but simply something old.

Go to the links folks AMD lies constantly.
.

From the article in Scientific American:

“In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

There was no bone. Real live actual dinosaur bone would be a miraculous find, and THAT would be the headline. Now sometimes it is called “bone” or “bones” and that might throw your minimal cognition - but they are actual fossils - they are not bone. But creationists have to lie to present a reasonable case - because the facts are against them.

But I guess it would be too much to ask for a geocentrist like yourself to either know or care to accurately represent the actual state of things.