Replies

glad you called me a liar.

Here’s a link to the SMITHSONIAN which, as we all know, is a shill for those know-nothing creationists, right?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

you might google around or something before you call someone a liar. Also, get an education. Anybody in the paleo field has knownd about this for years. And there are multiple finds, do your homework.

I said creationist sources lie. By this I did not call you a liar - but you have obviously been lied to.

Soft tissue structure is not soft tissue. If a mudslide preserves the detailed structure of an object after the object has decayed away - the object is not there - but the details of the ‘structure’ is. No actual “soft tissue” was found - despite creationist sourced lies about ‘red meat’.

Blood cell structures is not blood. Even if it tests positive in an ELISA for heme.

Fossilized bone is not collagen. Even if it tests positive in an ELISA for collagen.

And there is no indication that any sequencable DNA has ever been found from de-mineralized dinosaur fossils.

So soft tissue = zero.

Blood = zero.

Sequencable DNA = zero.

You have been lied to. So why do creationist sources lie? Because as usual the facts are against them.

The scientists work you linked to is a firm believer in the common descent and evolution of species and an old Earth. Do you think she is wrong about the nature of her own work?

from your link:

“Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by ‘young earth’ creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally...”