[kimtom]

Still a interesting find....

[Blood of Tyrants]

Evolutionists will believe anything except the possibility that they could be wrong.

[eclectic]

OMG, the Earth is flat!

[ClearCase_guy]

I know this isn't exactly rigorous science, but ...

Some folks look at the Grand Canyon and say, "It's old. How can you not see it?"
I look at dinosaur tissue and say, "It's not that old. How can you not see it?"

[PetroniusMaximus]

ping

[Red Badger]

Imagine, however, if a quick-witted, muscular, marathon runner with fair skin, thick, dark hair, low blood pressure, and a good memory, claimed to be 130 years old.

His name would be Lazarus Long.................. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long

[stormer]

Well first of all, I don't think the author understands just what a fossil is - he seems to believe that they all have gone through the process of petrification, and that simply isn't the case. And the fact that something is elastic implies nothing - there are a number of minerals that are quite elastic. At any rate, this should be an interesting thread...

[Driabrin]

Proteins do not degrade all by themselves. They are degraded by the environment. There are bacteria that eat it, oxygen that oxidizes it, water that gets into its nooks and crannies and unfolds it, and a whole slew of natural enzymes that cut it into pieces just because that’s what the body has to do to keep such junk from clogging everything.

Likewise, bones do not become hard and brittle just from age. Over time, as you use them, the body puts calcium in the bones to make them hard and brittle so they’ll be able to support your weight. The body doesn’t have any mechanism of stopping this process, so it just keeps turning your bones into limestone. If you die young, your bones will not calcify in the grave. This is why you normally find bones and teeth as fossils - they were already mineralized at the time of death.

Additional mineralization can replace soft tissue when it rots and mineral-rich water evaporates from the resulting cavity. If the soft tissue is completely enclosed by calcified bone in an airtight and watertight fashion, then it will not decay with time. There would be nothing in there to degrade it.

So no, it is not really surprizing to find soft tissue 65 million years old. It is rare merely because soft tissue is never fully enclosed. Even bone marrow has blood vessels going into it. To preserve it you’d have to have these holes plugged quickly after death, before the decay sets in. This does not occur often, making soft tissue finds very rare.

[Musketeer]

Read title and thought this was about Harry Reed.

[tacticalogic]

What if, when inspected by scientists, various dinosaur bones around the world are discovered with “highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”? What if fibrous proteins such as collagen were found, along with “cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells”? Would evolutionists come to a similar conclusion as most everyone would about a marathon-running, 130-year-old? Apparently not.

A couple of questions.

1. Is '“highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”' and accurate description of what was really found?

2. If it's not, why are there conclusions being drawn based on the premise that it was?

[dirtymac]

It’s due to man made global warming, Republican radical enviromental policy(s), effects of long dormant racism, and failure to support a wealth redistibution plan. Had these items been taken into account in our past then this soft tissue would have fossilized timely in their 80,000,000 year life span.

It is all very simple.

[editor-surveyor]

For the most part, the dinos began to die off about 1000 years ago, judging by the cultural evidence we have, both written and physical.