Replies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm

"This is fossilised bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil," she told the BBC's Science In Action programme.

"It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything."

Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance."

""This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.

"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC."

"Your statement should be easy to prove, so do so if you have contrary evidence. No counter evidence, no counter case"

Not necessary. The scientist explained that it was fossilized. You are the one who needs to go on an evidence hunt. Evo's have all kinds of evidence. Creo's have a book and a wild look in their eyes. Tyranosaur meat. Thanks for one more laugh before bedtime.

The story carried by Reuters and MSNBC was unambiguous:

"Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilized bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.
When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.
"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.
She said the vessels were flexible and in some cases their contents could be squeezed out.
"The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way," added Schweitzer, whose findings were published in the journal Science.
"Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before." Feathers, hair and fossilized egg contents yes, but not truly soft tissue...."

The only problem here is in the minds of the evolutionists. The logic goes like this:

You see, you or I or anybody who didn't know any better might think that was a tree. But that's not a tree, and anybody who thinks it is is a "goob".

Or that picture. You guessed it, that's not a cow.....

See what I mean? That's the mindset you have to get into to be an evolutionist.