.
ping
On the contrary, I am sure that most paleontologists, biologists, and what have you would be in favor of continuing this research.
As long as the scientific method is consistently employed, and enough evidence is subjected to it, any scientist worth his salt should embrace the resultant findings.
Regards,
While I agree with the author that science may be “reaching” to explain the anomalies of of million year old soft tissue fossils...The same anomalies still stand for a young earth...in this case six thousands years or 6 million years is the same problem...soft tissue should not survive that long....so both sides have to explain the mechanism preserving it
In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of dinosaur bones from around the world that are not completely fossilized. They actually contain intact protein fragments, including ones known as collagen and elastin. Amazingly, once the minerals are chemically stripped away from the soft tissue, the researchers were even able to squeeze round, dark red, microscopic structures from what was thought to be dinosaur blood vessels. However, since, according to evolutionists, “proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies,” this research has remained “controversial.”
Since Dr. Mary Schweitzer published her findings in 2005 and 2007 about “68-million-year-old”T. rex soft tissue, a much more thorough study has been done on a so-called “80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur.” What did researchers find? This time they found “an even larger number of protein fragments.” After using “chemicals to dissolve away the minerals,” scientists have seen what appears to be “a network of soft, transparent vessels” and cells.
Any strong, marathon-running, dark-haired, fair-skinned, wrinkle-free, 20-year-old-looking, modern man who claims to be 130 years old would be discredited immediately. Science and common sense would demand that the 130-year date be rejected. But what about the dates evolutionists give us for this “young looking” dinosaur tissue—tissue that evolutionists have called “miraculously preserved”? Now that the once “controversial” dinosaur proteins have been confirmed, are evolutionists reconsidering the age of dinosaur fossils? Are evolutionists considering the possibility that dinosaurs may have lived hundreds or thousands of years ago rather than 65+ million years ago? Apparently not—at least not in their writings.
-Eric Lyons AP
yep...the dinosaurs were in existence with early man..and they were not cavemen like the stupid evolutionist brainwash the kids with.