Replies

Sakic, it’s not improbable. It’s impossible. Protein, blood, soft-tissue—they cannot & do not remain intact for even one million yrs. This is a fact. 65-68 million yrs is so far out of the realm of possibility, it’s beyond description. Blood just doesn’t last that long under any circumstances.

Yet soft tissue, blood, etc., was found in the thigh bone of a T-Rex. This actually happened. If there was a single honest scientist on the evolutionary side, they wd have rushed to the nearest mic & announced the entire ‘science’ is a fraud. It’s all a lie. The scientific evidence just disproved it’.

Iow, the discovery of soft, flexible tissue inside a T-Rex thigh bone is so contrary to the foundation of evolutionary science as to negate it in total. But it didn’t because evolution isn’t really a ‘science’. It’s a faith system, & therefore nothing negates it. Its adherents merely ignore what doesn’t fit, & continue looking for evidence that actually does fit. This is what they will always do, because they are emotionally wedded to the theory.

Here is the link about the soft T-Rex tissue. It’s the last full section of the article, entitled “Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Blood”. I hope you will give it a read. It could change your views.

Yet soft tissue, blood, etc., was found in the thigh bone of a T-Rex.

Maybe so, but you can bet your life that it is NOT T. Rex soft tissue, blood, etc.

Like you say, that would be impossible. "...so far out of the realm of possibility, it’s beyond description," is the way you put it.

I agree.

You post even ONE legitimate reference that demonstrates the present day existence of T. Rex soft tissue, and there is a Nobel Prize in there for someone.

And it isn't T. Rex tissue, then what's the fuss?

Fantasywriter,

Sakic, it’s not improbable. It’s impossible. Protein, blood, soft-tissue—they cannot & do not remain intact for even one million yrs. This is a fact.

What do you base that on? Actually, it wasn't that long ago that a number of scientists were speculating that we may be able to sequence dino dna using new technology (like PCR) by finding pieces of DNA that might survive in certain environments (such as in amber).

This is what inspired Crichton to write Jurassic Park. A couple of decades later, we're still waiting for a single dino nucleotide.

And bear in mind that the "soft tissue" we're finding is bits of protein that decay vastly slower than dna.

In any case, it doesn't seem "impossible," IMO, to find microscopic bits of protein buried deep inside fossilized bones tens of millions of years old, when you consider that we find complete mammoths that are tens of thousands of years old that look like they died a few days ago.