[Alex Murphy]

The idea that dinosaur fossils might harbor soft tissue first surfaced about a decade ago, when paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found evidence of blood cells preserved inside T. rex fossils. But what's so exciting about this new study is that the fossils used, unlike Schweitzer's, aren't particularly well-preserved. Susannah Maidment, one of the paleontologists who worked on the paper, called them "crap" specimens. If they have preserved soft tissue inside them, it could be a sign that thousands of other fossils in museum collections do too.

It could also be a sign that they're not as old as previously believed.

[3boysdad]

Eggs-actly!

[Tennessean4Bush]

It could also be a sign that they're not as old as previously believed.

One of my first thoughts, as well. It will be interesting to see this develop...

[cuban leaf]

It could also be a sign that they’re not as old as previously believed.

---

Yup.

[editor-surveyor]

.
With all the discussion of “dragons” embedded in every culture, obviously they were alive 600-800 years ago in Europe and Asia where those writings originated.
.

[Tucker39]

Isn’t it interesting that the pseudo scientists who made the discovery are attempting to get the news out, while fatidiously skating around any mention that these discoveries knock their whole “billions and billions” lash-up into a cocked hat?!

[webstersII]

A number of these soft tissue finds have been carbon-dated to 20,000 to 40,000 years old.

In fact, Mary Schweitzer, who was referenced in the article, carbon-dated some. But she claimed said she couldn’t recall how old they were.

[Bulwyf]

That was my very first thought heh.

[driftdiver]

“It could also be a sign that they’re not as old as previously believed.”

Blasphemy!!!

[Advil000]

Bingo. It’s simply a mathematical impossibility that you are going to find preserved soft tissue remains in something 75 million years old. It is beyond the realm of possibility unless these same atheist evolutionists want to call it an outright miracle.

Anything they are seeing with these structures still intact can’t be more than some number of thousands of years old.

But that wrecks their narrative and smashes their belief system. So they choose to believe something far more improbable rather than face evidence screaming at them in all its soft-tissue glory.

Dino fossils. Soft tissues. Blood cells. Millions of years? No. And deep down they know it.

[fishtank]

Wait just a cotton pickin’ minute!

You mean to tell me that Darwin’s preconceived notions might not be true after all?

Next thing, you’ll tell me that Al Gore’s preconceived notions might not be true after all....

/sarc